Skip to main content

Full text of "Marihuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security : hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, second session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session] .."

See other formats

School of Law 












MAY 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, AND JUNE 13, 1974 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 



33-371 O WASHINGTON : 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $4.00 


JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii 

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky 


ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California 

Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal 
Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky 


J. G. Soorwine, Chief Counsel 
Raymond Siflt, Jr., Minority Counsel 
John R. Norpel, Director of Research 
Alfonso L. Tarabochia, Chief Investigator 


Resolved, by the Internal Security Subcommittee of thlie Committee 
on the Judiciary, That the testimony of Dr. Hardin B. Jones taken in 
executive session on May 21, 1974, and the testimony of Dr. Forest S. 
Tennant and David O. Cooke taken in executive session on June 13, 
1974, be released from the injunction of secrecy and printed in the 
same volume with the public hearings of May 9, 16, 17, and 20, 1974, 
all on "The Marihuana-Hashish Epidemic and Its Impact on U.S. 

James O. Eastland, 


Approved : September 4, 1974. 




Introduction V 

Thursday, May 9, 1974 1 

Thursday, May 16, 1974 49 

Friday, May 17, 1974 147 

Monday, May 20, 1974 199 

Tuesday, May 21, 1974 265 

Thursday, June 13, 1974 287 

Testimony of — 

Andrew C. Tartaglino, Acting Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforce- 
ment Administration 2 

Dr. Harvey Powelson, University of California at Berkeley 18 

Dr. Henry Brill, regional director. New York State Department of 
Mental Hygiene 30 

Dr. Donald B. Louria, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, N.J 36 

Maj. Gen. Frank B. Clay, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
Drug and Alcohol Abuse 43 

Dr. Robert G. Heath, chairman. Department of Psychiatry and Neu- 
rology, Tulane University 50 

Dr. W. D. M. Paton, the professor of pharmacology, University of 
Oxford 70 

Dr. Morton Stenchever, chairman. Department of Obstretrics and De- 
partment of Gynecology, University of Utah 84 

Dr. Gabriel Nahas, professor of anesthesiology. College of Physicians 
and Surgeons, Columbia University 92 

Dr. Akira Morishima, associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, 

College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University 109 

Dr. Robert Kolodny, Reproduction Biology Research Foundation, St. 
Louis, Mo 117 

Prof. Cecile Leuchtenberger, head of Department of Cytochemistry, 
Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research, Lausanne, 
Switzerland 126 

Dr. Julius Axelrod, chief, Section of Pharmacology, Laboratory of 

Clinical Science, National Institute of Mental Health 142 

Dr. John A. S. Hall, chairman, Department of Medicine, Kingston 
Hospital, Jamaica 147 

Dr. H. Kolansky, associate professor of psychiatry, University of Penn- 
sylvania School of Medicine 154 

Prof. M. I. Soueif, chairman, Department of Psychology and Philos- 
ophy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt 177 

Dr. Andrew Malcolm, member, Drug Advisory Committee, Ontario 
College of Pharmacy, Toronto, Canada 182 

Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg, research associate in psychiatry, Columbia 
University 189 

Dr. Conrad Schwarz, associate professor. Department of Psychiatry, 

University of British Columbia 200 

Prof. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology, 
assistant director, Donner Laboratory, University of California at 
Berkeley 206, 265 

Keith. Cowan, Prince Edward Island, Canada 250 

Dr. Forest S. Tennant, former chief, Special Action Office for Drug 
Abuse, U.S. Army in Europe 288 

David O. Cooke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, accompanied 
by Dr. John F. Mazzuchi, Brig. Gen. W. A. Temple, Col. Frank W. 
Zimmerman. David N. Planton, Comdr. S. J. Kreider, Col. Henry H. 
Tufts, Col. Wayne B. Sargent, and Col. John J. Castellot 314 



Statement of Dr. Arthur M. Zimmerman, professor of zoology, University 

of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 341 

Articles from scientific publications — 

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol: Localization in Body Fat (Science, 
January 26, 1973) 344 

Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marihuana Smokers 

(Science, February 1, 1974) 347 

Chromosome Breakage in Users of Marihuana (American Journal of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 1, 1974) 349 

Marihuana : Effects on Deep and Surface Electroencephalograms of 
Rhesus Monkeys (Neuropharmacology, 1973) 356 

Marihuana — Effects on Deep and Surface Electroencephalograms of 
Man (Arch Gen Psychiat, June 1972) 369 

Cerebral Atrophy in Young Cannabis Smokers (The Lancet, Decem- 
ber 4, 1971) 383 

Cannabinoid Content of Some English Reefers (Nature, May 17, 
1974) 393 

Clinical Effects of Marihuana on the Young (International Journal of 
Psychiatry, June 1972) 396 

Toxic Effect of Chronic Marihuana Use (Journal of the American 
Medical Association, October 2, 1972) 402 

Cannabis as a Long Acting Intoxicant (Paper) 413 

Article concerning Taxonomic Classification of Marihuana (Micro- 
gram, publication of Drug Enforcement Administration, Feb- 
ruary 1974) 418 

Miscellaneous Material Ordered Into the Record 

Commentary on Dosages Used in Studies of Marihuana in Rhesus Monkeys 

(Submitted by Prof. Robert G. Heath, M.D.) 382 

Letter from Prof. William Paton to Senator Gurney 392 

Anarchist Cookbook, the, excerpts from 419 

Turn On/Tune In/Drop Out (Berkeley Barb, May 20, 1966) 422 

Drugs (Disorientation: Notes for the Underdog) 423 

Resolution on Cannabis of the General Council of the Canadian Medi- 
cal Association 424 

Biographical Notes of Department of Defense Witnesses 425 




Senator James O. Eastland 

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security 

I consider the hearings which are the subject of this record to be 
among the most significant ever held by the Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee, or, for that matter, by any committee of Congress. The 
widespread interest already generated by the hearings suggest that 
they may play a role in reversing a trend towards national disaster. 

Without public awareness, our country has become caught up in a 
marihuana-hashish 1 epidemic that probably eclipses, in gravity, the 
national epidemics that have had so debilitating an effect on the popu- 
lation of a number of Middle Eastern countries. Speaking about this 
matter, Mr. Andrew C. Tartaglino, Deputy Administrator of the DEA, 
made this statement at the opening hearing on May 9, over which I 
presided : 

The traffic in, and abuse of, marihuana products has taken 
a more serious turn in the last two or three years than either 
the courts, the news media, or the public is aware. The shift 
is clearly toward the abuse of stronger, more dangerous forms 
of the drug which renders much of what has been said in the 
1960's about the harmlessness of its use obsolete. 

The epidemic began at Berkeley University at the time of the famous 
1965 "Berkeley Uprising." Not only was pot-smoking embraced as a 
symbolic rejection of the establishment, but, together with the "dirty 
speech movement," the right to pot became an integral part of the 
catalogue of demands of the uprising. From Berkeley, the marihuana 
epidemic spread rapidly throughout the American campus community. 
Then it spread down into the high schools and junior high schools — 
and within the last year or two it has begun to invade the grade 
schools. It has also spread into the ranks of professional society and 
of the bluecollar workers, so that all sectors of our society are today 
affected by the epidemic. Today it is estimated that there are some 
millions of regular marihuana users in the country, and the evidence 
indicates that they are graduating rapidly to the stronger hemp drugs, 
hashish and liquid hashish. 

The spread of the epidemic has been facilitated by the fact that most 
of our media and most of the academicians who have been articulate 
on the subject have been disposed to look upon marihuana as a rela- 

1 Marihuana and hashish are both derived from the cannabis, or hemp, plant. Marihuana 
consists of the leaves and female flowers ; hashish comes from the resin of the plant. 
Hashish is roughly 8 to 10 times as strong as marihuana. 



tively innocuous drug. (How the myth of harmlessness came to be so 
widely accepted is also part of the subject of this testimony.) There 
were some who even held that marihuana was a good thing, while most 
held that there really wasn't too much to worry about. 

Taking advantage of the confusion and widespread ignorance, a 
variety of movements seeking the legalization of marihuana came into 
existence. They gathered strength rapidly. In fact, by early this year 
concerned scientists and government officials were almost ready to 
throw in the sponge because the battle looked so hopeless. 

This situation, by itself was reason enough for concern. The Internal 
Security Subcommittee decided to look into it because of internal 
security considerations affecting the armed forces of the United States, 
and because of the evidence that clearly subversive groups played a 
significant role in the spread of the epidemic — both as propagandists 
and as traffickers. It was established, for example, in previous hearings 
of the subcommittee, that Timothy Leary's Brotherhood of Eternal 
Love had for a number of years been the largest producers of LSD and 
the largest organized smugglers of hashish in the country. 

The hearings focused heavily on scientific evidence of physical or 
psychological harmfulness, because this was basic to any assessment 
of the impact of cannabis on security. 

Important new scientific evidence had emerged within the last few 
years. But this evidence remained fragmented, sometimes inconclu- 
sive, and almost invariably completely unknown to the public. The 
situation was further confused by contradictory evidence and by the 
emergence of several best-selling books suggesting a more tolerant 
approach to marihuana. 

One of the principal reasons why hard scientific evidence has been 
so slow in emerging is that it is only within recent years — in fact, 
since 1970 — that accepted procedures for the quantitative analysis of 
marihuana have been established and that carefully standardized 
strains of marihuana have become available for research purposes. 
In the absence of standardized research materials and standardized 
analytical procedures, research scientists in the past, working with the 
utmost conscientiousness, often came up with sharply conflicting find- 
ings. Within the last few years, thanks to a remarkable program that 
has been developed at the University of Mississippi, 2 marihuana re- 
search is today moving forward without these handicaps — and, as this 
volume of testimony dramatically demonstrates, this research is pro- 
ducing some highly dramatic results. 

2 The program Is known as the Marihuana Project of the Research Institute of Pharma- 
ceutical Sciences, which is part of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Mississippi. 
The program was established in 1968, as part of a national program of research, by Dr. 
Coy Waller, formerly Vice President in Charge of Research at Meade-Johnson and con- 
sultant to the National Institute of Mental Health, who today serves as the Director of 
the Research Institute. The first Director of the Marihuana Project, from 1968 to 1971, was 
Dr. Norman Doorenbos. Since 1971, it has been under the direction of Dr. Carlton Turner, 
who also serves as Associate Director of the Research Institute. 

In addition to standardizing the marihuana used for research purposes, Dr. Turner's 
scientists have developed analytical methods which enable them to give accurate readings 
on ten different cannabinoids contained in marihuana samples — a few years ago, they 
were able to analyze for only three cannabinoid components. The marihuana the Institute 
cultivates is now used routinely for all research projects sponsored through the National 
Institute of Mental Health, while the United Nations Narcotics Commission has recom- 
mended that the analytical procedures developed at the University of Mississippi be used 

If today we know far more about marihuana than we did two or three years ago, it is 
thanks in large measure to the pioneering work done at this internationally unique research 


In the recent hearings, it was obvious that one of the first things 
that had to be done was to bring together the bits and pieces of recent 
research in an organized manner, because only in this way would the 
total significance of these findings become comprehensible. The sub- 
committee, therefore, issued invitations to some 20 prominent medical 
researchers and psychiatrists. Most of them were American, but six 
other countries were also represented in the panel of scientists. The 
pro-marihuana cabal could assail a single scientist whose research per- 
suaded him that marihuana was a very dangerous drug: this they 
could get away with. But abuse and character assassination would no 
longer be persuasive at the point where it was demonstrated that a 
large number of top-ranking scientists who had done research on 
cannabis were convinced that it is a drug with deadly consequences. 

With the assistance of several scientists who are internationally 
known for their research on cannabis and other drugs, the subcom- 
mittee staff put together a master list of scientific witnesses who, be- 
tween them, could cover the newly available scientific evidence in a 
broad spectrum manner. 

Among the eminent scientists who appeared before the Subcom- 
mittee were : 

Dr. Harvey Powelson: Research Psychiatrist, Berkeley Univer- 
sity; Chief of the Psychiatric Division of the Student Health Serv- 
ice at Berkeley from 1964 to 1972. 

Dr. Henry Brill: Regional Director of the New York State De- 
partment of Mental Hygiene; member and/or chairman of drug de- 
pendence committees of American Medical Association, National Re- 
search Council, the World Health Organization, and the FDA; senior 
psychiatric member of the Shaf er Commission. 

Dr. Donald Louria: Chairman, Department of Preventive Medi- 
cine and (Community Health, New Jersey Medical School ; Chairman 
and President, New York State Council on Drug Addiction, 1965 to 

Professor W. D. M. Paton: Head of the department of pharma- 
cology at Oxford University ; Chairman of committee overseeing the 
British Government's drug research program; author of a standard 
textbook on pharmacology and widely recognized as one of world's 
leading pharmacologists. 

Professor Morton Stenchever: Chairman of the Department of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah Medical School. 

Dr. Gabriel Nahas : Research Professor at the Columbia University 
College of Physicians and Surgeons ; simultaneously Visiting Profes- 
sor at the University of Paris. 

Dr. Akira Morishima: Research geneticist; Associate Professor, 
Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians 
and Surgeons; Chief of the Division of pediatric endocrine service at 
Babies Hospital, New York. 

Dr. Cecile Leuchtenberger of Switzerland : Head of the Depart- 
ment of Cell Chemistry at the Institute for Experimental Cancer Re- 
search in Lausanne ; founder and first Director of Cell Chemistry De- 
partment at Western Reserve University. 

Dr. John A. S. Hall : Senior Physician and Chairman, Department 
of Medicine, Kingston Hospital, Jamaica, since 1965 : Associate Lec- 
turer in Medicine, University of West Indies and visiting Assistant 
Professor of Neurology at Columbia University. 


Dr. Robert Kolodny: Director of the endocrine research section 
at the Reproductive Biology Research Foundation in St. Louis. 

Professor M. I. Soueif : Chairman of the Department of Psychology 
and Philosophy at Cairo University ; member of World Health Or- 
ganization Panel on Drug Dependence; author of classic study on 
consequences of hashish addiction in Egypt. 

Professor Nils Bejerot : Karolinska Institute, Sweden ; author of 
"Addiction and Society" and several other standard texts on the epi- 
demiology of drug abuse. Widely recognized as one of foremost inter- 
national experts in this field. 

Dr. Andrew Malcolm: Toronto psychiatrist; member, Drug Ad- 
visory Committee, Ontario College of Pharmacy; formerly Senior 
Psychiatrist, Rockland State Hospital, New York (1955-1958) . 

Dr. Harold Kolansky : Currently Associate Professor of Psychia- 
try at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; twice 
President of the Regional Council (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Dela- 
ware) of Child Psychiatry; Director of Child Psychiatry, Albert 
Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, 1955-1969 ; Chairman, Depart- 
ment of Psychiatry, Albert Einstein Medical Center, 1968-1969. 

Dr. William T. Moore: Currently Associate Professor in Clinical 
Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine ; Associate 
Professor of Child Psychiatry at Hahnemann Medical College for 13 
years up until 1972 ; for the past five years Director of Training, Di- 
vision of Child Analysis, Institute of Philadelphia Association for 

Professor Robert Heath : Chairman of the Department of Psychi- 
atry and Neurology at Tulane University Medical School. 

Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg: Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia 
University ; Chairman of the Drug Dependence Committee of the New 
York State Psychiatric Institute. 

Dr. Julius Axelrod. Nobel Prize winning research scientist at the 
National Institute of Mental Health. 

Professor Hardin B. Jones : Professor of Physiology and Professor 
of Medical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley ; Assist- 
ant Director of the Donner Laboratory of Medical Physics at Berkeley. 

Dr. Conrad Schwarz : Associate Professor, Department of Psychi- 
atry, University of British Columbia and Consultant Psychiatrist to 
the Student Health Service; Chairman of the Drug Habituation 
Committee of the British Columbia Medical Association. 

Dr. Forest S. Tennant, Jr. : Medical Director for several drug 
abuse programs in the Los Angeles area ; officer in charge of the drug 
abuse program of the U.S. Army Europe, 1971-1972. 

the scientific findings 

That our hearings succeeded in achieving their objective has been 
demonstrated by the dramatic increase of interest, on the part of the 
scientific community as well as the press, in the new scientific evidence 
on marihuana. For example, a recent issue of Science magazine 
(August 23, 1974) points out "the notion that marihuana is harmless 
has enjoyed a high degree of acceptability with only a minimum of 
scientific support. . . . Since 1969, when the federal government began 
making marihuana of controlled quality available to research sci- 
entists, evidence suggesting potential hazards has accumulated at a 


rapid pace. Those five years of research have provided strong evidence 
that, if corroborated, would suggest that marihuana in its various 
forms may be far more hazardous than was originally suspected." I 
think it worthy of note that ten of the scientists whose findings were 
quoted by the article in Science were among the witnesses who testified 
in the subcommittee's recent hearings. 

The collective testimony of the eminent scientists who came to 
Washington to testify may be summarized as follows : 

(1) THC, the principal psychoactive factor in cannabis, tends to 
accumulate in the brain and gonads and other fatty tissues in the 
manner of DDT. This was established beyond challenge by the re- 
search of NIMH Nobel Laureate, Dr. Julius Axelrod, and his associ- 
ates. As a corollary of this, they found that THC persists in the body 
long after the act of ingestion. In some parts of the body, residual 
amounts could be found as much as a week after ingestion. 

(2) Marihuana, even when used in moderate amounts, causes mas- 
sive damage to the entire cellular process : 

(a) It reduces DNA and RNA synthesis within the cell, which 
in turn sharply reduces the mitotic index, or the rate at which 
the cells give birth to new cells. (Nahas, Morishima, Zimmerman, 
Leuchtenberger, Paton) 

(b) In the case of the T-lymphocytes (the cells involved in the 
immune process) , marihuana use at the three-times-a-week level 
results in a 41 percent reduction in cell birth. (Nahas and associ- 

(c) It results in far more cells with defective chromosome 
complements — from 38 to 8 chromosomes instead of the normal 
complement of 46. (Morishima) 

The findings of five of the scientists who testified converged on the 
central theme of cellular damage. Other research that had been done 
in this field was also referred to. Professor W. D. M. Paton of Oxford 
University, one of the world's leading pharmacologists, summarized 
this recent research in these terms : 

Numerous such effects have now been described, including 
actions on microsomes, on mitochondria, on neurones, fibro- 
blasts, white blood cells, and on dividing cells, affecting 
metabolism, energy utilization, synthesis of cellular constitu- 
ents, and immunological responses. 

On the specific question of cellular damage, additional evidence is 
becoming available almost by the week. Since Dr. Nahas testified, for 
example, his findings on damage to the immune cells have been con- 
firmed by two nationally prominent medical scientists, Dr. Louis 
Harris and Dr. Louis Lemberger. Other aspects of cellular damage 
will be covered in several research papers, prepared under official au- 
spices, which are shortly to be published. 

Needless to say, the confirmation that marihuana does such serious 
damage to the entire cellular process opens up an entire spectrum of 
frightening possibilities. 

(3) Tied in with its tendency to accumulate in the brain and its 
capacity for cellular damage, there is a growing body of evidence 
that marihuana inflicts irreversible damage on the brain, including 
actual brain atrophy, when used in a chronic manner for several 

years. Psychiatrists who testified said that they knew of many cases 
of brilliant young people who went on prolonged cannabis binges, 
and then tried to go straight — only to discover that they could no 
longer perform at the level of which they had been capable. (Heath, 
Powelson, Kolansky and Moore, Paton) Professor Paton referred to 
animal experiments which demonstrated that rats exposed to mari- 
huana had smaller brains than rats which were not exposed, and to 
research by Dr. Campbell and associates in England which found brain 
atrophy in a group of young cannabis smokers comparable to the 
atrophy that is normally found in people aged 70 to 90. Professor 
Heath reported that, in experiments with rhesus monkeys exposed to 
marihuana, highly abnormal brain wave patterns persisted after the 
marihuana was withdrawn, suggesting long-term or permanent dam- 
age to the brain. 

(4) There is also a growing body of evidence that marihuana ad- 
versely affects the reproductive process in a number of ways, and that 
it poses a serious danger of genetic damage and even of genetic 
mutation. Scientific testimony presented pointed to the following 
conclusions : 

(a) Male hormone (testosterone) level was reduced by 44 per- 
cent in young males who had used marihuana at least four days 
a week for a minimum of six months. (Kolodny) 

(b) Sperm count was dramatically reduced in the same group 
of marihuana smokers, falling almost to zero with heavy smok- 
ers, so that they had to be considered sterile. (Kolodny) A simi- 
lar result was found with mice. (Leuchtenberger) 

(c) Very heavy smoking in a number of cases resulted in im- 
potence. Potency was recovered in some of these cases when mari- 
huana was given up. (Kolodny, Hall) 

(d) In animal experiments, the spermatids (the precursors of 
the sperm cells) were found to be abnormal in the sense that 
they carried reduced amounts of DNA. (Leuchtenberger) 

(e) Regular marihuana use, even down to the once a week 
level, results in roughly three times as many broken chromo- 
somes as are found in non-users. While further research is nec- 
essary, this suggests the possibility of genetic abnormalities. 

(f ) In a number of animal experiments, marihuana was found 
to cause a very high rate of fetal deaths and fetal abnormalities, 
including runting and lack of limbs — the thalidomide effect. 

(5) Chronic cannabis smoking can produce sinusitis, pharyngitis, 
bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory difficulties in a year or 
less, as opposed to ten to tioenty years of cigarette smoking to produce 
comparable complications. (Tennant, Paton, Kolansky and Moore) 
Professor Paton pointed out that emphysema, which is normally a 
condition of later life, is now cropping up with increasing frequency 
in young people, opening up the prospect of "a new crop of respiratory 
cripples" early in life. 

(6) Cannabis smoke, or cannabis smoke mixed with cigarette smoke, 
is far more damaging to lung tissues than tobacco smoke alone. The 
damage done was described as "pre-cancerous." (Tennant, Leuchten- 
berger) Although further research is indicated, preliminary observa- 


tions suggest that marihuana may be a far more potent carcinogen 
than tobacco. 

(7) Chronic cannabis use results in deterioration of mental function- 
ing, pathological forms of thinking resembling paranoia, and u a mas- 
sive and chronic passivity'''' and lack of motivation — the so-called 
"amotivational syndrome." (Powelson, Bejerot, Zeidenberg, Malcolm, 
Schwarz, Jones, Kolansky and Moore, Hall, Soueif, Tennant) 

Describing the zombie-like appearance of chronic cannabis users, 
Dr. Tennant said: "Major manifestations were apathy, dullness and 
lethargy, with mild to severe impairment of judgment, concentration 
and memory . . . physical appearance was stereotyped in that all 
patients appeared dull, exhibited poor hygiene, and had slightly 
slowed speech. . . ." 

Several psychiatrists suggested that the total loss of their own will 
would make a large population of cannabis users a serious political 
danger because it makes them susceptible to manipulation by extrem- 
ists. (Powelson, Kolansky and Moore, Malcolm) 


The scientific evidence presented to the subcommittee points to an 
array of frightening social consequences, or possible consequences. 

(1) If the cannabis epidemic continues to spread at the rate of the 
post-Berkeley period, we may find ourselves saddled with a large 
population of semi-zombies — of young people acutely afflicted by the 
amotivational syndrome. There is evidence that many of our young 
people, including high school and junior high school students, are 
already afflicted by the "amotivational syndrome." The general lack 
of motivation of the current generation of high school students is a 
common complaint of teachers. Some of them point out that the 
growth of this phenomenon in recent years has roughly paralleled the 
spread of the cannabis epidemic. 

(2) We may also find ourselves saddled with a partial generation 
of young people — people in their teens and early twenties — suffering 
from irreversible brain damage. Their ability to function may im- 
prove if they abandon cannabis, but they will remain partial cripples, 
unable to fully recover the abilities of their pre-cannabis years. 

(3) The millions of junior high school and grade school children 
who are today using marihuana may produce another partial genera- 
tion of teenagers who have never matured, either intellectually or 
physically, because of hormonal deficiency and a deficiency in cell- 
production during the critical period of puberty. This fear was 
expressed in particularly urgent terms by Dr. Paton and Dr. Kolodny. 
As Dr. Paton put it, we may witness the phenomenon of a generation 
of young people who have begun to grow old before they have even 

(4) There are other frightening possibilities, too. There is the 
possibility of which Dr. Paton spoke that we may develop a large 
population of youthful respiratory cripples. And there is the pos- 
sibility — which can only be confirmed by epidemiological studies — 
that marihuana smokers are producing far more than their quota of 
malformed or genetically damaged children. 

( 5 ) There is the growing body of evidence that marihuana use leads 
to indulgence in other drugs. 


(6) If the epidemic is not rolled back, our society may be largely 
taken over by a "marihuana culture"— a culture motivated by a desire 
to escape from reality and by a consuming lust for self-gratification, 
and lacking any higher moral guidance. Such a society could not long 

These are some of the reasons why we cannot legalize marihuana, 
and why society cannot remain indifferent to the epidemic. 


What makes the prospect even more terrifying is the extraordinary 
epidemic potential of cannabis. It is doubtful that any other drug in 
common use today has a comparable potential. 

I do not underestimate the damage done by the abusive use of 
alcohol. But the nature of alcohol places certain limitations on its 
epidemic spread. It is impossible, or at least very difficult, to take a 
quart of whiskey or a six-pack of beer to one's place of work, or, in the 
case of a teenager or grade schooler, to take it to school. If one did take 
it to school or to work, it would be difficult to find the time during the 
work day or during school hours to get oneself really intoxicated on 
alcohol. And if a worker or a student did manage to get himself stoned 
on alcohol, he would be given away by his drunken stagger or by the 
smell of alcohol on his breath. 

But with marihuana, there are no such limitations. It is cheap 
enough so that even a fourth or fifth grader can afford to buy a joint 
or two with his weekly allowance. It is compact enough so that a few 
joints can easily be concealed on the body. All it requires is a 10 or 15 
minute break to get thoroughly stoned. And, apart from a tired and 
passive look which may suggest that the user is short on sleep, there 
are no telltale symptoms ; the user, though stoned, does not walk with 
a stagger, nor is there any odor on his breath. A student could sit 
through an entire day in a cannabis stupor, and learn nothing — and 
his teacher would be none the wiser. 

On top of this, users of marihuana suffer from a much more com- 
pelling urge to proselytize and involve others than do users of alcohol. 
One can attend a cocktail party and drink ginger ale and not be har- 
rassed and pushed by one's cocktail friends to get in on the act and 
drink. At pot parties, the pressures are infinitely greater. 

Another factor contributing to the spread of the cannabis epidemic 
is the tremendous potency of the material available and the ease with 
which it can be concealed and transported. A pound of "liquid 
hashish" — a concentrated distillate derived from either marihuana 
or hashish — would theoretically be enough to intoxicate a city of 15,000 

Still another factor is that, with marihuana and hashish, chronic 
abuse begins at a use level which would be insignificant with alcohol. 
A person who took a drink of whiskey once a week or even three times 
a week, would be considered a light drinker ; it has yet to be argued 
that alcohol consumption at this level can do any damage. But a person 
who smokes marihuana three times a week or more is generally con- 
sidered a chronic smoker; and there are some scientists who insist 
that even once a week smoking constitutes chronic use. In support 
of this contention, they point to the facts that THC persists in the 


brain for a week or more after smoking, and that some of the research 
covered in our recent hearings found dramatic changes even at the 
once a week level (cf. Stenchever on chromosome damage). 

Finally, there is the almost unbelievable rate at which — if it is 
readily available — a cannabis user can escalate from occasionl social 
use to chronic and massive abuse. It generally takes years before a 
chronic drinker escalates to a quart a day. But, according to Dr. 
Tennant, GI's who arrived in Germany as casual marihuana users, 
would a month or two later be consuming 50 or 100 grams — and in 
some cases up to 600 grams — of hashish monthly. Three grams of 
hashish a day, it should be pointed out, is roughly 12 times the 
amount required to produce a hashish intoxication. 


There are conflicting estimates of the number of chronic cannabis 
users in our country. According to some estimates, there are roughly 
20 to 25 million people who have used marihuana in one degree or 
another, but only one to two million who may be considered regular 
users. According to the estimate of NOEML (National Organization 
for the Reform of Marihuana Laws), the total number of Americans 
who have been exposed to marihuana runs close to thirty-five million, 
while the number of regular users is past the ten million mark. 

Figures on seizures of marihuana and hashish submitted to our 
hearings by the Drug Enforcement Administration strongly suggest 
the validity of the higher estimate. According to DEA, federal seizures 
of marihuana over the past five years have increased tenfold, to a total 
of 780,000 pounds in 1973, while federal seizures of hashish over the 
same period of time increased twenty-five fold, to a total of almost 
54,000 pounds. These figures do not include seizures by state and local 
law enforcement authorities. Assuming that ten times as much got into 
the country as was actually seized — a fairly conservative estimate — 
this would mean that total consumption of marihuana in 1973 was 
probably close to ten million pounds, while total consumption of 
hashish probably exceeded 600,000 pounds. (These estimates make 
some allowance for non-federal seizures — for which no figures are 

These are truly staggering quantities when one understands just how 
potent marihuana and hashish are and how little is required to become 
intoxicated. No one could possibly get intoxicated on an ounce or two 
ounces of hard liquor. An ounce of hashish with a 10 percent THC con- 
tent is sufficient for a hundred intoxications ; an ounce of marihuana 
with a 1.5 percent THC content is enough for roughly twelve intoxi- 
cations. And when it comes to "marihuana oil," or "liquid hashish," as 
it is sometimes called, the THC content of which can run as high as 
60 to 90 percent, we have a substance with an almost lethal potential for 
mass intoxication. One drop of liquid hash is enough to send the user 
into the stratosphere, while a pound of the strongest variety would be 
enough to intoxicate a population of 15,000. 

These figures provide some clue — but only a partial clue — to the 
damage done by the massive quantities of marihuana and hashish con- 
sumed in our country last year. 


It must be emphasized that those who are caught up in the cannabis 
epidemic are not using marihuana or hashish as a substitute for al- 
cohol. With increasing frequency they are being consumed together. 
The scientists who testified before the subcommittee were agreed that 
adding marihuana to alcohol, or alcohol to marihuana, does not pro- 
duce an arithmetic effect but a synergistic, or compounding, effect. The 
combination of the two intoxicants produces a far more potent and 
dangerous form of intoxication, whose short and long term conse- 
quences we still know very little about. While there are reported to be 
some 10 million problem drinkers in our country, the overwhelming 
majority of those who use alcohol are what we call social drinkers, 
who take it occasionally and with moderation. But at the point where 
a person takes one drink of whiskey with a joint of pot, we are no 
longer dealing with a social drinker — we are dealing with someone 
who is suffering from a highly dangerous form of intoxication. 

In its own right, the scale of the current cannabis epidemic would 
give us plenty to worry about and so is the scale of alcohol abuse. The 
emergence of an alcohol-cannabis epidemic is even more worrisome. 


The spread of the epidemic has been facilitated by the widespread 
impression that marihuana is a relatively innocuous drug. This im- 
pression has been shared by liberals and conservatives, by laymen and 
judges, and even by people actively involved in the war on drugs. For 
example, in March of 1973 an advisory committee consisting of some 
40 prominent D.C. citizens filed a report urging the complete legaliza- 
tion of marihuana on the ground that : 

No demonstrable medical evidence is available to support 
the assertion that marihuana use is hazardous or detrimental 
to the physical or mental health of the user. 

The widespread acceptance of the myth of harmlessness has been 
due to several things. Certainly a role of some importance was played 
by the militant pro-marihuana propaganda campaign conducted by 
many New Left organizations, by academicians sympathizing with the 
New Left, and by the entire underground press, ever since the Berke- 
ley uprising. 

Some of this propaganda was positively euphoric on the virtues of 
marihuana. Dr. Joel Fort of San Francisco, a member of the Sociology 
Department of the University of California and a former consultant 
on drug abuse to the World Health Organization, had this to say on 
the subject: "Cannabis is a valuable pleasure giving drug, probably 
much safter than alcohol, but condemmed by the power structure of 
our society." An article in "The Sciences" by L. Greenwald in 1968 
went even further. "Marihuana," said Greenwald, "restores to the stu- 
dent his ability to feel in an often hostile environment, and the liberat- 
ing action of that drug is going to allow him to experience more inti- 
mate social contact." 

But the myth of harmlessness has been stimulated in even greater 
degree by a number of highly publicized writings and by reports, some 


official, some unofficial, which have taken a rather benign attitude 
toward marihuana. A major role was also played by the generous at- 
tention which the media bestowed on militant drug enthusiasts like 
Timothy Leary and Jerry Kubin. The damage was further compounded 
by the virtual blackout imposed by much of our media — at least until 
recently — on adverse scientific evidence about the effects of marihuana. 
The result has been that Congress and the American public have been 
exposed for years to an appallingly one-sided presentation of the 
marihuana controversy. 

Another factor contributing to the myth of harmlessness was the 
selective manner in which the Shaf er Commission Eeport was handled 
by the media. This report, as several witnesses pointed out, contained 
a number of apparently contradictory passages, which made it possible 
to write a story suggesting caution or to write one suggesting that its 
emphasis was on tolerance. But it did contain quite a number of fairly 
strong cautionary passages. It was for the purpose of setting the rec- 
ord straight on the Shafer Commission Report that one of the first 
witnesses heard by the Subcommittee was Dr. Henry Brill, who had 
served as senior psychiatric member of the Commission. This is what 
Dr. Brill had to say on the subject : 

I am concerned about the misinterpretations which have 
developed with respect to the marihuana report of that Com- 
mission. These misinterpretations result from reading the re- 
assuring passages in the report and ignoring the final conclu- 
sions and recommendations, and the passages in the report on 
which they were based. As a result it has been claimed that 
the Commission's report was intended to give marihuana a 
clean bill of health, and as a covert, or indirect support for 
legalization of this drug in the near future, or as a step in 
that direction. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

From my knowledge of the proceedings of the Commission, 
I can reaffirm that the report and the subsequent statements 
by the Commission meant exactly what they said, namely that 
this drug should not be legalized, that control measures for 
trafficking in the drug were necessary and should be con- 
tinued, and that use of this drug should be discouraged be- 
cause of its potential hazards. 

It was because of this pervasive imbalance in dealing with the 
question of marihuana that so many intelligent people have been under 
the impression that the scientific community regards marihuana as 
one of the most innocuous of all drugs. Part of the purpose of our 
recent hearings was to correct this imbalance — to present the "other 
side" of the story — to establish the essential fact that a large number 
of highly reputable scientists today regard marihuana as an exceed- 
ingly dangerous drug. We make no apology, therefore, for the one- 
sided nature of our hearings — they were deliberately planned this way. 


In previous statements, I have made it clear that I am opposed 
to the decriminalization of marihuana use and that I believe some 
penalties have to be retained. However, a man would have to be devoid 


of compassion if he did not sympathize with the plight of a youthful 
offender who was caught smoking marihuana because he succumbed to 
peer pressures or to the bad advice he received from older students 
and from a small but vociferous group of academicians. (The aca- 
demic propagandists for marihuana are protected by the First Amend- 
ment, but in my judgment they are far more culpable than the young 
people who have heeded their advice ! ) In most cases involving youth- 
ful offenders, especially first offenders, the purpose of justice is not 
served by sentencing them to prison and giving them criminal records. 
Our federal laws and many of our state laws have in recent years been 
modified in a manner that reflects a more compassionate approach, 
and the law is further tempered by the compassionate understanding 
which the great majority of judges have for the problems of young 

Although there is still some unevenness in the state laws governing 
the use of marihuana and although there is always room for review 
and improvement, in practice very few young people are being sent 
to prison for simple possession of marihuana, especially when they 
are first offenders. On this point, there is such broad agreement that 
I feel it is no longer at issue. 

But there is a militant lobby in our country which has been agi- 
tating and lobbying for the complete legalization of marihuana. As 
a stepping stone in that direction, they are working for the complete 
decriminalization of simple possession. This means that personal use 
of marihuana would no longer be covered by criminal law, that it 
would not even be considered a misdemeanor under the law. These 
matters still are at issue — and I truthfully believe that they cannot 
intelligently be decided without an assessment of the known and po- 
tential dangers posed by marihuana use. 

Not all drugs are equal — no one. for example, has yet proposed 
that we deal with coffee and heroin, or tobacco and heroin, in exactly 
the same manner. And the evidence I have presented in the preceding 
pages should be sufficient to establish that the dangers of cannabis 
are much closer to the dangers of heroin, in scope and quality, than 
they are to the admitted but far more limited dangers of coffee or 
tobacco — or, for that matter, alcohol. 

The scientists who testified before the subcommittee were unani- 
mous on the point that it made no sense to send young people to prison 
for simple possession of a few joints of marihuana. On the other 
hand, they were strongly opposed to legalization, and not one of them 
spoke in favor of decriminalization. They expressed the belief that 
it would seriously undercut any national effort to discourage mari- 
huana use if all penalties were removed for simple possession, as the 
Shafer Commission had recommended — and which remains the con- 
tinuing objective of the pro-marihuana lobby. Dr. Brill, who, as a 
member of the Shafer Commission, had voted in favor of eliminating 
all penalties, indicated to the subcommittee that he was now re- 
thinking this recommendation. 

Commenting on the proposal that the decision on whether or not 
to use drugs, and especially marihuana, should be left to the indi- 
vidual, Dr. Andrew Malcolm, a distinguished Canadian psychiatrist, 
called for a combination of education and the law. Said Dr.Malcolm : 

It is necessary to have some external restraint when, indeed, 
some of the people are incapable of exercising internal re- 


straint. But those people who propose [that the matter be 
left to] "wise personal choice" usually are unalterably op- 
posed to any kind of external restraint. It is very foolish, be- 
cause what we need, in fact, is both of these elements. 

Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg, Chairman of the Drug Dependence Com- 
mittee of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, while he held that 
the marihuana epidemic could not be eradicated by legal measures 
alone, nevertheless strongly opposed legalization and said that there 
have to be some penalties for use. These were Dr. Zeidenberg's words : 

I believe that legalization will turn on a "green light" 
which will enormously increase the number of chronic heavy 
users, just as it has in every other country where de facto 
legalization exists. Once this happens, marihuana will be- 
come an integral part of our social structure and take on 
complicated social and symbolic significance, as tobacco and 
alcohol already have. Once this happens, it will be virtually 
impossible to remove it. 

Ultrapunitive measures taken against individuals occasion- 
ally using the drug can only lead to the backlash of pressure 
for legalization. Offenders should be given light, but signifi- 
cant sentences, enough to be a sufficient deterrent to repeated 
use. Chronic heavy users should be offered psychiatric treat- 
ment, not jail The job of the law is to find the appropriate 

deterrent so that the marihuana problem is kept as a minor 
drug-abuse problem without crucifying errant adolescents. 

Warning about the drive to legalize cannabis in the United States, 
Professor Nils Bejerot of Sweden said : 

The demand for legalizing cannabis has been strongest in 
those countries which have had the shortest experience and 
the weakest forms of the drug. Correspondingly, I consider 
that as a psychiatrist one's attitude to cannabis becomes more 
negative the more one sees of its effects. 

If cannabis were legalized in the United States, this would 
probably be an irreversible process not only for this country 
and this generation, but perhaps for the whole of Western 
civilization. As far as I can see, another result would be a 
breakdown of the international control system regarding 
narcotics and dangerous drugs. 

The pro-marihuana lobby brandishes the statistic that there were 
some 400,000 arrests nationwide for marihuana offenses last year. They 
do so in a manner which creates the impression that some 400,000 
young people went to jail because they were caught with a few joints 
in their possession. The actual situation is quite different, 

The number of arrests involving marihuana was very high, among 
other reasons because virtually every petty criminal arrested for shop- 
lifting or burglary or mugging or other similar offenses had mari- 
huana in his possession at the time of his arrest. But according to many 
reports, our law enforcement authorities — federal, state, and local — in 
most cases do not even bother to make arrests when they find young 
people smoking marihuana or in possession of less than an ounce. 

The cases that do come to court for the most part receive suspended 
sentences or fines, while most states now have a provision in their laws, 

33-371 O - 74 - 2 


similar to the provision in the federal law, calling for the expunging 
of the record for first offenders after one year, if parole is satisfac- 
torily completed. 

However, the law is uneven from state to state. Some states, while 
they have the theoretical power to send first offenders to prison, in 
practice rarely use this power. But here and there, it must be conceded, 
simple possession is still punished by prison terms. 

I believe it would be helpful in dealing with this situation if the 
federal law and state laws could be brought into basic harmony on the 
question of marihuana. I do not suggest that the states slavishly adapt 
their laws to the current federal model ; in many respects, in fact, I 
think federal law has something to learn from existing state statutes. 

There is one state statute that does not recommend itself as a model : 
that is the marihuana law recently adopted by the State of Oregon. 
Under this law, simple possession of small quantities of marihuana is 
not treated as a violation of the criminal law but as a civil violation — 
something akin to a parking ticket. While the maximum fine provided 
is one hundred dollars, in practice the fines imposed rarely exceed 
thirty dollars. And those thus fined, if they can afford it, can go on 
collecting marihuana violations just as freely as some chronic illegal 
parkers collect parking tickets. 

This approach, I submit, is altogether too permissive and just 
doesn't take into account the serious social damage done by marihuana 
or the compelling need to protect society against the spread of the 
habit. It doesn't take into consideration the basic fact that all drug ad- 
diction — including marihuana addiction — is like a contagious disease. 
Society can't remain indifferent to the spread of this disease. 

The law must be framed in a manner that makes it unmistakably 
clear to young people that smoking marihuana is a crime against so- 
ciety. This is something that decriminalization would completely 
destroy. I believe that the kind of escalated penalties provided by 
state law in New Mexico, to give one example, make much more sense. 
Under this law, the possession of one ounce or less for a first offender 
is punishable by a fine of $50 to $100 and /or 15 davs in jail. The jail 
sentences are rarely imposed, but this much discretion is given to the 
judge. The penalty for repeat offenders is a fine of $100 to $1,000 
and/or one year in jail. Suspended sentences are frequently given and 
there is provision for expunging the record after one year. 

New legislation governing the use of drugs requires the most careful 
consideration by Congress because — as Dr. Bejerot pointed out conces- 
sions to tolerance, once made, are very difficult, if not impossible, to 
eradicate. However, as far as marihuana use is concerned, I believe 
that the philosophy guiding such legislation miqrht well be based on the 
opinions expressed by Dr. Zeidenberg and the other scientists who 
testified before the subcommittee. I think there is much merit to Dr. 
Zeidenberg's proposal, for example, that instead of jail sentences, we 
might consider sending chronic abusers for a period of time to an 
institution where they will be given intensive education on drugs and 
psychiatric treatment if thev need it. 

When it comes to the pushers and the traffickers. I think our federal 
and state laws have got to be reinforced. I find it an outrage that, over 
and over again, criminals caught in the possession of hundreds and 
even thousands of pounds of marihuana get off with very light sen- 
tences or even with six months suspended sentence. For the pushers 


and traffickers, there have got to be heavy minimum sentences, and 
they have got to be mandatory. 

The suggestion has been made that it might help to break up the 
traffic in drugs if offenders at every level — users, pushers, and small 
and intermediate traffickers — could be assured of suspended sentences 
if they cooperated by identifying the source, or sources, from which 
they had obtained their drugs. This is a proposal which merits serious 

There are some who argue that tough law enforcement is not the 
answer to the drug problem, that we won't be able to deal effectively 
with the drug problem until we eliminate our slums, eliminate pov- 
erty, eliminate unemployment, and create a social utopia. I am all in 
favor of doing everything we reasonably can do to improve the qual- 
ity of our society. But the fact is that every year since the early six- 
ties has witnessed a massive increase in the amount we spend for new 
social programs — and the same period of time has witnessed a stagger- 
ing increase in our drug protein. 

No drug problem has ever been controlled by decriminalization or 
by social reforms. In every country where the drug problems have 
been effectively controlled, it has been thanks to strong laws against 
both the use and sale of the drug. That is how it is controlled in Com- 
munist countries ; and that is how it has been controlled in some non- 
Communist countries, both authoritarian and democratic. There is no 
serious drug problem, for the indigenous population or for the GI's, 
in either Taiwan or South Korea. Nor is there one in Japan. The con- 
trast between Germany and Italy is most instructive in this connection. 
In Germany, where drug laws are lax and law enforcement ineffective 
because it is fragmented among the Laender, or states, there has been 
a runaway epidemic of hashish consumption among the American 
GI's. (According to Defense Department witnes c es, this situation has 
now improved significantly — although it still remains serious.) 
In Italy, where the drug laws are mn<rh stronger, drug use among 
GI's has been kept to a minimal level. The GI's in both countries are 
basically the same. The difference is the law. 


The scale of the marihuana-hashish epidemic makes it essential that 
we embark — with as little delay as possible — on a national educational 
program directed in the first place to our young people. 

Can the facts that are assembled in this volume be communicated 
to young people who are disposed to be skeptical about information 
they receive from "the establishment?" I am convinced that this 
evidence can be communicated to young people and can influence 
them — because it is far more graphic, far more persuasive and far 
more authoritative than any information that has heretofore been 
available for marihuana education programs. 

Dr. Forrest Tennant, who was in charge of the U.S. Army drug 
program in Europe from 1968 to 1970, told the subcommittee that at 
one point he had actually given up on anti-cannabis educational pro- 
grams because the material at that time was not too persuasive, and 
while the programs discouraged some GI's, they stimulated the cur- 
iosity of others, so that there was no real net progress. He expressed 


the conviction, however, that armed with the recent evidence that had 
been presented to the subcommittee by so many eminent scientists, it 
would be possible to mount an educational program that GI's would 
find credible. The fact is that no young person wants to run the risk 
of irreversible brain damage, and no young male wants his male hor- 
mone level reduced by more than 40 percent or his sperm count reduced 
to close to zero. Nor does any young person, boy or girl, want to run 
the risk of genetically damaged children. These are dangers that 
young people will respond to. 

There is an even larger matter that should be considered by every 
young person who finds himself yielding to the temptation of drugs 
or to peer pressures. Whatever each of us does, affects, for better or 
for worse, all those around us. And the fact is that every young person 
who takes marihuana or hashish or other drugs, drags down not only 
himself, but drags down his friends, drags down his family, drags 
down his community, drags down his nation. I would commend to 
every young person who is prepared to stop and think the wise words 
of Dr.* Gabriel Nahas, one of the eminent scientists who appeared as a 
witness before the Subcommittee : 

One may wonder... how long a political system can 
endure when drug taking becomes one of the prerequisites 
of happiness. If the American dream has lost its attraction, 
it will not be retrieved through the use of stupefying drugs. 
Their use only delays the young in their quest to understand 
the world they now live in and their desire to foster a better 
world for tomorrow. 

A final word of an editorial nature. So many scientific papers and 
supporting documents were left with the subcommittee by the wit- 
nesses that the inclusion of all of them would have made this a docu- 
ment of almost prohibitive length. In the interests of economy, 
only a portion of these documents have been included in the Ap- 
pendix. I particularly regret that it was not possible to include a 
bibliography of some 800 cannabis research papers which Professor 
W. D. M. Paton of Oxford prepared for the subcommittee, because this 
volume was already in page proof at the time of its arrival. I ask the 
indulgence of the scientists who gave supplementary material to the 
subcommittee which has not been included in the printed Appendix. 
Hopefully, this material can be included in a followup study or 

On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to thank the many dis- 
tinguished witnesses who gave so generously of their time to make 
these landmark hearings possible. 


THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. in room 
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland 

Present : Senators Eastland and Thurmond. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel, and David Martin, 
senior analyst. 

Senator Eastland. The hearings on which we are embarking 
today deal with the "Marihuana-Hashish Epidemic and Its Impact 
on the United States Security." They represent an extension of the 
previous hearings the subcommittee has held on the world drug 
situation, which have already resulted in eight volumes of published 
testimony. In opening these hearings, I want to repeat just a few 
of the points I made in a statement I put out yesterday. 

Over the past 5 years there has been a runaway escalation in the 
use of marihuana and hashish. What was once a campus phenome- 
non has moved down to the high schools and the junior high schools 
and the grade schools, and upward into the ranks of adult society. 

The spread of the cannabis epidemic has been facilitated by a 
massive and perplexing imbalance in the published information 
generally available to the public on the subject of marihuana. There 
are competent scientists who believe that it is relatively harmless. 
On the other hand, there is a large body of scientists of interna- 
tional reputation whose research on cannabis has convinced them 
that it is a highly dangerous drug, and this in many different ways. 

When a conflict of opinion exists within the scientific community 
on a question as important as marihuana, the Congress and the 
American people are entitled to a fair presentation of both sides 
to this controversy. In fact, however, there has been widespread 
publicity for writings and research advocating a more tolerant 
attitude towards marihuana — while there has been little or no 
publicity for writings or research which point to serious adverse 


consequences. The writings are there, the research papers by eminent 
scientists are there, the books are there — but very few people know 
about them. One witness who will appear before the subcommittee 
will testify that in campus bookstores in the United States, Canada, 
and England, virtually all of the literature he found on marihuana — 
and he found a lot of it— took a tolerant attitude toward it or even 
advocated legalization. 

It is because of this strange imbalance in dealing with the ques- 
tion of marihuana that most intelligent people are under the im- 
pression that the bulk of the scientific community looks upon mari- 
huana as a relatively innocuous drug. Part of the purpose of the 
forthcoming hearings will be to inquire into, and document, the 
extent of the imbalance. In doing this, we shall, in effect, be pre- 
senting the "other side", so that the Senate and the American people 
will have a better understanding of both sides of this controversy. 

In this morning's hearing our witnesses will present an overview 
of the cannabis epidemic from the time of the 1964 Berkeley upris- 
ing, which marked the beginning of the campus epidemic, to the 
present day. Our witnesses this morning are Dr. Harvey Powelson 
of the University of California; Dr. Henry Brill of Pilgrim State 
Hospital in New York; Mr. Andrew C. Tartaglino of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Maj. Gen. Frank B. Clay of the De- 
partment of Defense; and Dr. Donald Louria of the New Jersey 
Medical School. 

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for taking the trouble to come 
before the subcommittee to testify on the subject of our inquiry. 
In the interest of saving time, I would like to ask that you all rise and 
be sworn simultaneously. If you would come forward, gentlemen. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Dr. Powelson. I do. 

Dr. Brill. I do. 

Mr. Tartaglino. I do. 

General Clay. I do. 

Dr. Lotjria. I do. 

Senator Eastland. Mr. Tartaglino, will you come forward? 


Mr. Martin. Mr. Tartaglino, a few questions for the purpose of 
establishing your qualifications. You are Acting Deputy Admin- 
istrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Yes, sir; I am. 

Mr. Martin. You have held this position since July 1, 1973? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Prior to that you held a number of important posi- 
tions in various agencies concerned with the enforcement of our 
drug laws ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Your first assignment in this field was with the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Narcotics, in which you served as a criminal investi- 
gator from January 1963 to April 1966? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, I served as criminal investigator. 

Mr. Martin. That is not reflected in the biography which we 
were given. Then, you have been active in the field of enforcing our 
drug laws for more than 20 years ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Tartaglino, before you start your statement, 
will you tell us briefly what you mean by the words "hashish' 5 and 
"cannabis*', I think it would help people to have a clearer under- 
standing of your testimony. 

Mr. Tartaglino. It means all the preparations of the cannabis 
sativa plant of which there is but a single species. It includes the 
typical marihuana cigarette, hashish, marihuana or hashish oil, et 

Mr. Martin. Marihuana and hashish are not basically different 
substances ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, they come from the same plant. 
What I have brought with me this morning is an internal publica- 
tion which sets out pretty much in detail what we mean when we 
are discussing broader terms. If you like, I will submit that for the 

Mr. Martin. May that be admitted in the record, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

[The document referred to may be found in the appendix, p. 418.] 

Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Tartaglino, you may proceed with 
your statement. 

Mr. Tartaglino. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee: My name is Andrew C. Tartaglino and I am the 
Acting Deputy Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Admin- 
istration within the Department of Justice. Today I am appearing 
before you on behalf of Mr. John E. Bartels, Jr., our Admin- 
istrator, who is presently out of the country on official travel. Ap- 
pearing with me as counsel is Mr. Gene K. Haislip, also of DEA. 

I am pleased to appear before your committee this morning in 
connection with its continuing inquiry into the illicit traffic in, and 
abuse of, marihuana. There is perhaps no more controversial sub- 
ject in the area of drug control. 

Marihuana has become the focus of an organized campaign de- 
signed to make its use a legally sanctioned and permanent feature 
of our society. Persons who take this position are fond of citing 
the emotional propaganda of the 1930's which referred to it as the 
"killer weed". But anyone familiar with the pro-marihuana litera- 
ture of the present can see that they have indulged in equally 
exaggerated misrepresentations in the opposite direction. I believe 
that some of the data I have to present today will show that their 
point of view is equally out of date. 

The details of the medical and scientific facts concerning mari- 
huana abuse are matters which I prefer to leave to the doctors and 
scientists whom you have invited to appear before you today. My 
own view is that it is a potentially harmful substance which we 
should not permit to become an accepted part of our society. Those 
of us in law enforcement have felt that the dangers inherent in this 
drug would become more apparent with increasing research ; and we 
believe this is in fact now occurring. The earlier views of some 
observers in the 1960's were based on examination of short-term 
users of marihuana of a relatively low potency. Concern has in- 
creased now that scientific investigators have been able to study the 
the effects of chronic use. 

A major factor encouraging this conservative point of view is the 
steady trend toward the abuse of more potent marihuana prepara- 
tions such as hashish and hashish oil. This trend can be seen in the 
figures attached to my statement which show that seizures of 
hashish have increased by 2,274 percent during the last 5 years to 
a total of almost 27 tons for calendar year 1973. Incidentally, when 
Mr. Bartels, our Administrator, testified before your committee in 
October of last year, the hashish seizures for the first half of 1973 
were below the rate of the previous year. Now that figures for 1973 
are complete, they exceed the previous year by 12 tons. 

The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration, however, 
is the suppression of the traffic in marihuana products and not their 
use which is primarily a problem for the Nation's health and edu- 
cational authorities. While most of the drug law enforcement effort 
is conducted at the State and local level, the Federal Government 
through the DEA is uniquely suited to fulfill a broader mission — 
that of disrupting marihuana and hashish traffic which is organized 
at the interstate and international levels. To this end, our enforce- 
ment effort is focused on stopping the flow of the drug at, or near, 
its foreign source and in disrupting commerce in marihuana at its 
highest level where the apprehension of violators can have the most, 
impact. We have found that the closer the point of interdiction is 
to the source of the drug, the greater is the quantity handled by a 
decreasing number of people. This is the target at which we aim in 
order to achieve optimum results. 

The traditional source of marihuana reaching the United States 
is Mexico. It is illegally cultivated for this purpose on "marihuana 
plantations" in remote areas where little control is exercised bv the 
central government. After harvesting and packaging, it may then 
move into the United States concealed in the normal stream of 
commerce, or by clandestine means utilizing aircraft, vessels, four- 
wheel drive vehicles, or body-packs. 

Beginning with 1970, substantial quantities also began to arrive 
from Jamaica which has now become another principal source of 
supply. Lesser amounts are now being smuggled from Colombia 
as well, and hashish may originate from any one of several Middle 
and Far-Eastern countries, principally Morocco, Lebanon, Afghan- 
istan, and Nepal. 

There has been as much misrepresentation of the nature of the 
traffic in marihuana as there has been regarding the drug itself. 
Many have the impression that this traffic is somehow unlike that 
involving other drugs; that it is conducted more informally by stu- 
dents and young persons for reasons other than profit. This is no 
more the case today than it is with heroin or other contraband. 

The traffic in marihuana is often a highly organized, well financed 
venture involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal profits. 
The persons who engage in it are essentially the same criminal types 
who organize other forms of illicit drug traffic and have the same 
propensity for violence. For example, just last month, two uni- 
formed U.S. Customs Patrol officers were found murdered near 
Nogales, Ariz., together with a suspect whom they had killed in a 
gun battle. This man was found seated at the wheel of a truck con- 
taining 200 pounds of marihuana which he had attempted to drive 
from the scene. 

Perhaps one of the most extraordinary investigations illustrating 
the scope to which this marihuana traffic has grown is an investiga- 
tion now in progress in Florida. This involves a group of successful 
professional and white collar financiers and their associates who 
refer to themselves as the "Gainesville Marihuana Dealers Associa- 
tion". The organization was first detected by the Florida Department 
of Law Enforcement. In November of last year, agents of our Miami 
regional headquarters joined with the State officers and U.S. Cus- 
toms and Internal Revenue Service agents in a joint task force 
known as "Operation Panhandle". 

Although the investigation is still in progress, enough has been 
learned to permit an estimate of their activities. During the 6 
months in which the task force has been operating, this group has 
smuggled approximately 80 tons of marihuana into the United 
States. The drugs obtained through supply connections in Jamaica, 
and occasionally Colombia, and brought into predetermined land- 
ing points along the Florida panhandle by vessels carrying multiton 
loads. The drugs will then be convoyed by as many as 10 to 15 
trucks in a single shipment to special storage areas on horse farms 
or orange groves owned by the association members. During de- 
liveries, countersurveillance teams are established by the violators 
in watchtowers along the approaches to the storage areas. Later, the 
marihuana will be delivered by trucks, carrying one to several tons, 
to various association customers in any of the 32 affected States. 

Thus far, the investigation has resulted in the arrest of 19 indi- 
viduals, the seizure of 35 tons of marihuana and the seizure or 
impoundment of $1,250,000 of association funds. A brief description 
of several other representative cases is attached to my statement. 
In one of these a 153-foot 45-ton freighter was used in an attempt to 
smuggle 3,700 pounds of hashish from Morocco. 

In spite of the fact that cases of this size and complexity have 
become common, large segments of the public persist in the view 
that trafficking in marihuana is a small affair indulged in by juve- 

niles. One result of this is that sentences meted out to large-scale 
marihuana traffickers are frequently inadequate. 

During the fall of last year, a special conspiracy unit comprised 
of Federal, State, and local officers was formed to investigate the 
activities of a suspect named Martin Williard Houlton, believed to 
be engaged in large-scale marihuana smuggling. When the investi- 
gation was finally completed, the intelligence indicated that Houlton, 
a 54-year-old proprietor of a Columbus, N. Mex. motel and bar, 
maintained a small air force of 20 high-speed aircraft which aver- 
aged 18 smuggling trips per week between Mexico and the United 
States. On each occasion, some 500 to 700 pounds of marihuana 
would be brought into the United States for distribution. 

After obtaining advanced court authorization for a wire intercept 
information was at last obtained of the plans for a specific smug- 
gling flight. On the day in question, a DEA agent conducting 
aerial surveillance from a DEA aircraft was able to monitor the 
takeoff of three of Houlton's aircraft, which were later observed to 
land and load suspected contraband. Aerial surveillance was main- 
tained on the returning flight by DEA and U.S. Customs aircraft 
and shortly after the planes landed on a small airstrip near Colum- 
bus, Houlton and several of his associates were arrested in posses- 
sion of 2,300 pounds of marihuana. 

In February of this year, Houlton was found guilty by a New 
Mexico State court and given an 18-month suspended sentence and 
a $1,000 fine. Neither he nor any of his associates who were con- 
victed with him, have served any time in prison for their extensive 

The inescapable conclusion which we draw from the examples and 
statistics which I have cited is that the traffic in, and abuse of mari- 
huana products has taken a more serious turn in the last 2 or 3 
years than either the courts, the news media, or the public is aware. 
The shift is clearly toward the abuse of stronger, more dangerous 
forms of the drug which renders much of what has been said in 
the 1960's about the harmlessness of its use obsolete. 

During the same period, the organization of the marihuana traffic 
has likewise increased in both size and complexity. Thus, the way 
in which the public, the judiciary, and oftentimes the law enforce- 
ment community, conceives of the marihuana problem is out of date, 
and our responses to it are similarly inappropriate. The purpose 
which I hope to serve in appearing before you this morning is to 
help bring about an awareness of this change. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will now be pleased to respond to 
any questions which you or other committee members may have. 

Mr. Martin. There are a number of charts and tables attached to 
the statement, Mr. Chairman; may the charts be incorporated into 
the record? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Tartaglino, you have prepared a number of 
charts you wish to show the members of the committee; would you 
want to run through them quickly ? 








■V.; "■ 

' v , '.; • 'V'^-** -v..^ -*-: 



""■'.'. ' 

■",■ . - '.s, ■ .■ ■■-■'■'.'• ' , •■■- • 


, „*, ;'r-, „ , ,„' ;„;, '.' 

'■'I".'"""- ■ l ,; j p- 1 .'■>-' ■• ■,-,' .-' 


















vv «■.».; ""^r" ■"■" 


Removed from Illicit Market 















CO Si 










Mr. Tartaglino. The first chart illustrates the illicit marihuana 
and the second chart the illicit hashish by year from 1969 to 1973, 
removed by Federal agents alone. You can see that when we speak 
of hashish, seizures have increased from roughly a little more than 
2,000 pounds in 1969 to 53,000 pounds in 1973, or some 27 tons. We 
have gone from 1 to 27 tons in a very short space of time. 

In marihuana you can see a very similar increase. We have gone 
to some 375 tons that were removed in 1973. 

Mr. Martin. 780,000 pounds? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Yes, I am reducing that figure to tons; and that 
is just an illustration of how we have grown from 35 tons in 1969. 

I might add that as recently as 10 years ago, the only hashish 
that was found in the United States was probably a quarter pound 
in the sole of some seaman's shoe that he brought over for his own 
use. I recall when our seizure was under 10 pounds a year. But, in 
1969 we exceeded 1 ton, and of course last year we have gone to 27 

Mr. Martin. I think it might be useful to let people know what 1 
pound of hashish can do. A quart of whiskey can only get a few 
people drunk, but how many people can get drunk on a pound of 
hashish ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Well, I would have to go into a discussion of the 
potency of it, but what you say is roughly correct. 

This third chart shows the arrests for cannabis State, local and 
Federal; the yellow is Federal, we have gone from 333 arrests in 
1969 to over 1,500 last year. 

You can see local enforcement agencies in 1972 arrested almost a 
quarter of a million people in the United States for cannabis viola- 
tions, hashish and marihuana. 

In the map that you see before you we have tried to give you an 
illustration of generally the areas that are affected in the United 
States today ; the purpie arrows illustrate hashish ; the orange illus- 
trates marihuana. We also have represented there on this chart the 
largest marihuana seizure on record, 42 tons in Jamaica; a single 
seizure of marihuana which was destined for the United States. The 
largest domestic seizure last December, 20 tons in Florida. In hashish 
the largest domestic seizure, 3,700 pounds, almost 2 tons, in Miami, 
in March of this year. The largest foreign seizure, 12 tons in Karachi, 





Senator Eastland. What is the difference between marihuana and 
hashish ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Hashish is derived from the resin of the mari- 
huana plant; it is a more concentrated form of marihuana. 

Mr. Martin. What is the difference in strength? 

Mr. Tartaglino. It has a great deal more potency. We measure 
marihuana preparations by their tetrahydrocannabinol content. Reg- 
ular manicured marihuana has 1 to 2 percent tetrahydrocannabinol; 
hashish has 10 to 15 percent. So, it has perhaps seven times the 

Senator Thurmond. Several times the strength? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Seven times the strength. 

Senator Thurmond. Seven times the strength. 

Mr. Tartaglino. Yes, as a general rule. 

Mr. Martin. And then when it comes to liquid hashish, I believe 
Mr. Bartels has testified that you have samples going up to 90 
percent THC content? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, we have samples running all the 
way from 35 to 40 percent THC contents ; and it is possible to make 
it up to 90 percent. That is relatively new on the market and cer- 
tainly a most dangerous form. 

Mr. Martin. I believe Mr. Bartels also testified that a drop of 
this on a cigarette is enough to send one off into the stratosphere — 
that is, 90 percent THC? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, that is the maximum content. 

Mr. Martin. I have a few questions — and I would like to suggest 
Mr. Chairman, that the charts and maps they have prepared, or 
photographs of them, be received for the record. 

Senator Eastland. As exhibits, yes. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. 
Tartaglino. When Mr. Bartels, your Administrator, was here, he was 
testifying on the Brotherhood of Eternal Love; that is an organi- 
zation founded by Dr. Timothy Leary; is that correct? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Do you remember off-hand how many tons of hashish 
the Brotherhood was able to smuggle into the United States before 
you were able to close down on them? 

Mr. Tartaglino. We will have to check our statistics, it was in 
excess of 20 tons. 

Senator Thurmond. How much? 

Mr. Tartaglino. In excess of 20 tons. 

Mr. Martin. 40.000 pounds. 

Mr. Tartaglino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. From Mr. Bartels' previous testimony, and from 
your testimony today it is apparent that over the past few years 
smugglers have been operating with much more massive quantities 
of marihuana and hashish? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct, a shift of such massive quantities 
that they are going from aircraft to ships, which is a major change. 

Mr. Martin. Now, the figures in the charts you have shown us 
reflect only the quantities interdicted by the Federal law enforce- 


ment; they do not reflect the quantities seized by local and State 
law enforcement authorities? 

Mr. Tartaglino. They reflect the quantities seized by Federal 
law enforcement authorities in cooperation with foreign authorities 
where we have liaison or offices abroad; they do not include local 

Mr. Martin. If you included local seizures, the total quantities 
removed from the illicit market would be substantially higher for 
marihuana and hashish than the figures we have in the charts? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Absolutely. 

Mr. Martin. Now, I have here a few items dealing with massive 
seizures of cannabis in recent weeks, in Puerto Rico and Mexico. 
On March 23 San Juan reported a seizure of some 700 pounds of 
marihuana coming from Colombia; and there is a second item from 
San Juan, dated March 28, which speaks about the seizure of almost 
8,000 pounds of marihuana, $10 million worth. Do you have a record 
of either of these seizures? 

Mr. Tartaglino. We would have a record of it, but I don't have 
it with me here, sir. 

Mr. Martin. But you would not have a record of seizures made 
by local authorities? 

Mr. Tartaglino. If they were made by local authorities, we may 
just have a newspaper item we collect for routine information. But 
if it was a local authority, we would not have that in our statistics. 

Mr. Martin. And I would simply note for the record that the 
third item, dated Acapulco, March 30 — these items all fall within a 
week — reports a seizure of 6V2 tons of marihuana, 13,000 pounds, 
by the Mexican police. That's a big chunk of marihuana. 

Is there any doubt in your mind that the United States was the 
target area for this massive seizure of marihuana in Acapulco? 

Mr. Tartaglino. There is no doubt in my mind. We can reasonably 
suppose that most of the large seizures are traditional traffic to the 
United States. 

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for 
arranging these hearings ; and I want to express my appreciation to 
the witnesses who are appearing here, too ; I believe we have hearings 
set for the 16th and 17th, and I hope I can attend these hearings. 
Today I'm tied up in the Armed Services and we scheduled $9 bil- 
lion for our Armed Forces; I ask the chairman to excuse me for 
that reason. But, I did want to come by and show my interest in 
these hearings, they are extremely important. I am scheduled to 
chair these hearings on the 20th, and I am looking forward to that 
time, too. I don't know of any subject more important, especially 
affecting our young people than this question of drugs. 

Mr. Martin. I have a few questions I would like to ask you, Mr. 
Tartaglino, about your chart dealing with the increase in cannabis- 
related arrests. The chart shows far fewer arrests by the Federal 
authorities than by the local authorities. Would this be because the 
Federal authorities concentrate on the large-scale smuggling oper- 
ators, while most of the arrests made by local authorities have to 
do with small-scale possession? 

33-371 O - 74 


Mr. Tartaglino. We had a criteria that we utilized, and we set 
our sights at large-scale interstate traffic, and international traffic. 
We do that in coordination with local and State authorities. So, 
your answer is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Now, in terms of the actual quantities of cannabis 
seized or interdicted, the Federal authorities probably seized far 
more from the illicit market than the local authorities? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Is it true that the local law enforcement authorities 
in most parts of the country are less rigorous than they used to be 
in arresting young people who have a joint or two of marihuana in 
their possession; do you have any impression on that? 

Mr. Tartaglino. t don't believe I could accurately answer that 

Mr. Martin. Eight. Would it be reasonable to infer that the tre- 
mendous increase in cannabis arrests by State and local authorities, 
tied in with the figures in your own charts, points to a sharp increase 
in marihuana and hashish consumption in our country? 

Mr. Tartaglino. There is no question about that. 

Mr. Martin. Could this increase in cannabis interdictions por- 
trayed in your charts be the result, at least in part, of improved 
enforcement capabilities? 

Mr. Tartaglino. I think we can say that there is increased awareness 
by local, State, and Federal enforcement, of the dangers. 

Mr. Martin. Do you have more men? 

Mr. Tartaglino. We have more men than we had 4, or 5 years ago. 

Mr. Martin. Better technology? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Better technology; we have more individuals 
involved in this war; we have better State-Federal programs in 
metropolitan enforcement groups throughout the United States; 
task forces, local, State, and Federal. 

Mr. Martin. But you don't believe that the tremendous increase 
can be explained entirely on the basis of improved enforcement ca- 
pability ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Martin. I note in table No. 6 attached to your statement that 
interdiction of heroin went down from 1,541 pounds in 1971 to just 
over 1,000 pounds in 1972, and 483 pounds in 1973. This isn't because 
you slackened your efforts against heroin? 

Mr. Tartaglino. No, we feel that we have made some inroads 
in the heroin traffic. I think that the seizures that have been made, 
and the recent reduction in seizures reflect a decrease in the traffic. 
I will have to develop this more. I think it is directly related to a lot 
of cooperation overseas, better groups in the United States working 
on it, increased manpower, increased resources, et cetera. We are in 
our 26th, or 28th month of what we refer to cautiously as a heroin 
shortage. There definitely is a heroin shortage in the United States. 

Mr. Martin. Generally speaking, the reduction in the amount 
of heroin interdiction more or less corresponds to what we know 
about the decrease in actual heroin use in this country? 

Mr. Tartaglino. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. And the next question is, wouldn't this reinforce 


the assumption that the tremendous increase in the interdiction of 
marihuana and hashish does in fact correspond to the amount actually 
consumed ? 

Mr. Tartaglino. I think our understanding is that the increased 
seizures mean that there is a lot more coming in, yes. 

Mr. Martin. Right. Those are the only questions I have. 

Mr. Sourwine. You have three attachments covering specific 
cases, I think they should go in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eastland. The attachments will be received for the record. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

Hashish Smuggling: East Coast Surveillance 

On March 1, 1973, the Air Police at Orly Airport, Paris, France advised 
DEA that two individuals had been observed carrying $297,000 in American 
currency. An investigation had been initiated on Donald and John Griffin 
who arrived in the United States from France in December 1972 and who 
were planning to return to Europe via the SS Michelangelo accompanied 
by four automobiles. Further investigation identified these individuals as 
being active in the Miami, Florida area where they had purchased two luxury 
imported automobiles, a Maserati and a Lamborghini for $33,850. Both ve- 
hicles were paid for in five and ten dollar bills taken from a clear plastic 
bag issued by a national hotel chain. The subjects' motel was located and it 
was ascertained that they and other accomplices had rented a 30 ft. sailboat 
at North Palm Beach, Florida subsequently returning that boat for a larger 
vessel. Nine months later the same group attempted to rent another sailboat 
but were discouraged by the company's inquiries as to their purpose in rent- 
ing. Alerted by the Marine Company, DEA located the two subjects reg- 
istered at a Juno Beach, Florida motel under assumed names. DEA surveil- 
lance established that the two subjects were subsequently joined by two 
additional subjects. Three of the subjects rented a 22 ft. motor home and 
spent two days driving through Northern Florida and Southern Georgia. 
DEA vehicle and aerial surveillance was maintained and they were observed 
examining the Atlantic Coast and the St. Johns River while using naviga- 
tional charts. 

Upon returning in the motor home the subjects conducted numerous forays 
out of their two motels using the motor home and a rented automobile. 
Using the auto, two subjects visited a boat yard and then proceeded to a 
wooded section adjoining the inter-coastal waterway where they remained in 
the woods for a brief period and then joined their cohorts in the motor home 
several miles away. Later the same day all four subjects revisited the wooded 
site and subsequently two of them went to the boat yard they had visited 
earlier and were observed proceeding south in the inter-coastal waterway in 
an 18-ft. motorboat. At midnight the motorboat was observed returning 
toward the boat yard with its running lights off. The motor home was sur- 
veilled with the four subjects as it drove to the wooded site along the inter- 
coastal waterway where it parked for a short while then proceeded to Ft. 
Pierce, Florida for the night. The following day the motor home was driven 
to Palm Beach Gardens, Florida where the four subjects registered at a 
motel and were soon joined by a fifth conspirator and subsequently by a 
sixth conspirator, a known narcotic violator from New York. The mobile 
home and three subjects proceeded to Jacksonville, Florida later in the day 
and registered at a motel where they were joined by 'the other three subjects 
who drove in a rented automobile. The rented car was then exchanged for 
another vehicle. 

The following day the New York violator departed for New York via com- 
mercial aircraft and for the next two days DEA agents maintained aerial 
and vehicle surveillance on the five subjects as they proceeded north. During 
the course of the surveillance, agents seized traces of hashish from one of 
their recently vacated motel rooms. During the evening of October 29th 
through October 30th the subjects were under constant surveillance as they 
operated out of their Annapolis, Maryland motel. They placed foreign tele- 


phone calls and recontacted the New York City narcotic violator and also 
telephoned a local resident. The rented auto was spotted from the air at a 
local farmhouse which had been telephoned earlier. The subjects attempted 
counter-surveillance techniques as the car and motor home established con- 
tact and moved to the farmhouse area. When the motor home stopped to let 
traffic pass, surveilling agents arrested the three occupants. The interior of 
the motor home was pungent with the odor of marihuana substance and 
1183 lbs. of hashish and 46 lbs. of hashish oil were seized. DEA agents 
then drove the motor home to the farmhouse where they were greeted by 
four additional individuals and two of the subjects who were unaware of 
the fact that occupants of the motor home were federal agents. Arrests were 
made and an automatic weapon, additional hashish and marihuana, and two 
Citizen's Band radios were seized. 

Follow-up investigation established a smuggling conspiracy involving citi- 
zens of the United States, England, Australia, and South Africa who con- 
trolled a fleet of yachts operating out of France and Spain via Lebanon to 
the United States. It was established that over 3,000 lbs. of hashish had been 
smuggled into the United States by this ring on four occasions. Five subjects, 
in addition to the eight arrested, have been identified and are under active 
investigation at this time. 

Hashish Smuggling From Pakistan 

In November 1973, a confidential informant reported to DEA agents at 
Karachi, Pakistan, that an individual, later identified as Mohammed Sultan, 
had approached him seeking assistance in locating someone who would 
smuggle one to two tons of hashish into the United States. Following instruc- 
tions of the DEA agents, the informant told Sultan that he knew a U.S. 
diplomat who was being transferred back to the U.S. and would probably be 
willing to send the hashish with his personal effects. 

On November 6, 1973 a DEA agent was introduced to Sultan as being the 
diplomat. Sultan accepted the agent and stated that he wished to ship 1,000 
kilograms of hashish. Sultan expected the deal to bring a profit of $1,000,000 
of which Sultan was to get half, with $400,000 going to the Agent and $100,000 
to the informant. The agent said he would be flying to the U.S. in a day or 
two after packing his household effects. Sultan then said the agent could 
make an additional $40,000 by taking 100 kilograms with him on the aircraft. 

On November 8, 1973, Sultan gave the agent $500 advance toward expenses. 
At this same meeting Sultan asked if the agent could take 150 kilograms of 
hashish on the plane instead of 100 kilograms, explaining that someone would 
meet the agent in New York and pay him $60,000 for the hashish. The agent 

On November 15, 1973, Sultan introduced the agent to his partner Makil 
Ashraf and to Salim Hraoui who was to be the recipient in New York. On 
November 18, 1973, the agent again met with Sultan, Ashraf, and 
Hraoui and arrangements were made for delivery of two tons of hashish to 
the American Consulate, ostensibly for inclusion with the agent's household 
effects. Later the same day Sultan called the agent and said he was unable 
to locate a truck. The agent then obtained a Consulate truck and drove it, 
as instructed by Sultan, to the Pakistan Textile Plant at Karachi, where it 
was loaded with two tons of hashish. This same date, Sultan delivered to 
the agent $2,500 additional expense money. The hashish was subsequently 
turned over to Pakistan Sea Customs. 

On November 19, 1973, the agent proceeded to the Pakistan Textile Factory 
at Sultan's instruction, and picked up seven suitcases containing 151 kilo- 
grams of hashish. The agent retained a representative sample of approxi- 
mately seven kilograms, for delivery to New York, and turned the balance 
over to Pakistan Sea Customs. 

On November 20, 1973, the agent arrived in New York and met Salim 
Hraoui. When the agent told Hraoui the hashish was ready for delivery 
Hraoui paid the agent $35,000. Hraoui was arrested as he went to a vehicle 
to obtain the hashish. 

On the night of November 22, 1973, Mohammed Sultan was arrested in 
Karachi. He subsequently admitted that he had an additional quantity of 
about 10 tons of hashish concealed in 55 gallon drums at the Pakistan Textile 


Factory. DEA agents and Pakistan Customs officers went to the factory, 
found and seized the 10 tons of hashish. 

This operation removed over 12 tons of hashish from the market and re- 
sulted in the arrest of the principal defendants. Prosecution is pending as of 
April 29, 1974. 

"Sea Trader" 

During February 1974, information was developed which indicated that a 
group of individuals had been smuggling tons of marihuana from the Carib- 
bean into the United States, including New York, Louisiana, and Florida. 
Information was also developed that this group had been planning to bring 
a large load of hashish from Morocco. Intelligence indicated that the load 
would be 7,000 pounds and would be transported on a vessel later identified 
as the "Sea Trader." The "Sea Trader" is a 153 foot, 45 ton gross freighter, 
registered out of Panama. The "Sea Trader" was believed to be in Morocco, 
departure date unknown, and attempts to locate were initiated, and alerts 
were posted in the continental United States. 

On April 9, 1974, information was received that the "Sea Trader" was 
dead in the water with engine trouble at a point approximately 150 miles 
south-east of Bermuda. 

DBA requested the assistance of the U.S. Coast Guard who dispatched a 
long range search plane to locate "Sea Trader" and conduct a search for 
any vessel enroute to contact "Sea Trader" and attempt to offload the hashish. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter "Gallatin" was dispatched and proceeded at 
the fastest possible speed to attempt to take the vessel in tow to the nearest 
U.S. Port. 

On April 10, 1974, Coast Guard Cutter "Gallatin" arrived on scene and 
relieved sea going Tug Robin VIII of the tow. "Sea Trader" would not agree 
to be towed to the nearest U.S. port but agreed to have "Gallatin" tow "Sea 
Trader" to protected Bahamian waters. 

On April 12, 1974, "Sea Trader" was anchored within the 3-mile limit of 
Bahamian waters and two other boats approached to assist the "Sea Trader." 

"Sea Trader" was boarded by Drug Enforcement Administration and Ba- 
hamian authorities and subsequent search revealed 70 bags containing ap- 
proximately 3,700 pounds of hashish. Nine subjects were arrested and two 
vessels were seized by the Bahamian authorities. 

The contraband and subjects were returned to Nassau for criminal pro- 
ceedings. DEA will initiate conspiracy indictments in the United States. 

Mr. Sourwine. Your charts and tables, sir, appear to indicate that 
the rate of increase of hashish is substantially greater than the rate 
of increase of marihuana. For instance, over a 5-year period the 
marihuana increase is roughly 10 times; the hashish increase is 22 
times. Do you take that as an indication that hashish is in some de- 
gree replacing marihuana, that the user is starting out with pot 
and graduating to hash? 


Calendar year- 








73, 108 

185, 096 

308, 048 


782, 033 

Domestic (DEA) 


59, 840 


148, 772 
26, 422 

21, 380 

201, 558 

85, 110 


365, 421 

97, 494 


Ports and borders (Customs, INS)... 
DEA/foreign cooperative. 

489, 961 
240, 693 





22, 188 

30, 094 

53, 333 

Domestic (DEA) 





14, 406 

20, 189 


Ports and borders (Customs, INS)... 

45, 457 




Calendar year— 





Total domestic removal (in pounds): 

Opium 25 30 58 

Heroin . 427 691 1,541 

Cocaine 208 730 602 

Total DEA/foreign cooperative seizures 
(in pounds): 

Opium 1,590 1,360 1,440 

Morphine base 706 811 2,271 

Heroin 395 301 937 

Cocaine 35 75 346 

DEA Federal arrests: 


Cocaine >950 » 1,104 « 1,923 

Other narcotics 

State and local arrests: * 

Heroin and cocaine... 67,945 108,427 114,573 







17, 379 




50, 746 










92.364 .... 

> Reported as narcotics arrests. 
2 Source: Uniform crime report. 

[In kilograms) 1 

Calendar year— 





Herb 1,471,408 

Resin 37,253 

Opium.. 40,153 

Morphine 813 

Heroin 546 

Cocaine 158 

1, 825, 769 

3, 073, 638 

32, 237 


40, 729 

29, 308 







'Source: 25th Session, Commission on Narcotic Drugs (Sept. 22, 1972). 

Mr. Tartaglino. I definitely think so, I agree with that. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Mr. Tartaglino. 

Mr. Tartaglino. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Harvey Powelson will be our next witness. 

Senator Eastland. Identify yourself for the record, sir. 


Dr. Powelson. I am Dr. Harvey Powelson, from the University 
of California at Berkeley. I want to thank the chairman and the 
committee for having me here today, I am honored and pleased. 

Mr. Martin. Before you read your statement, Dr. Powelson, I 
would like to ask you a few questions for the purpose of establish- 
ing your qualifications. Now, you have a degree in medicine and a 
degree in psychiatry from the University of California? 

Dr. Powelson. That's right. 

Mr. Martin. You have been a practicing psychiatrist since 1951? 

Dr. Powelson. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. You held a clinical appointment on the faculty of 


the University of California Medical School until you resigned 
from the faculty last year? 

Dr. Powelson. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. You have also served on the faculty of the Psycho- 
analytic Institute in San Francisco? 

Dr. Powelson. That's right. 

Mr. Martin. You served as director of the psychiatric department 
of Kaiser Hospital in Oakland, Calif., for 8 years? 

Dr. Powelson. That's correct.' 

Mr. Martin. You are currently serving as a research psychiatrist 
at the University of California at Berkeley ? 

Dr. Powelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. You are also currently serving as mental health offi- 
cer of Calaveras County ? 

Dr. Powelson. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. You served from 1964 to 1972 as director of the 
psychiatric department of the Student Health Service at the Univer- 
sity of California at Berkeley? 

Dr. Powelson. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. All right, Dr. Powelson, will you proceed with your 
prepared statement. The mike is not working too well, so, if you 
would keep your voice level up it would be helpful. 

Dr. Powelson. In 1965, I was chief of the Department of Psy- 
chiatry in the Student Health Service at the University of Cali- 
fornia in Berkeley. It was the first year of the student riots. It was 
also the first year that hallucinogens were becoming widely used 
and I, as the person responsible for mental health on that campus, 
was vigorously involved in the debate about psilocibin, LSD, and 

In the spring of that year a reporter for the Daily Californian, 
the student newspaper, asked for my opinion on marihuana. At that 
time I lacked any direct experience as a physician with marihuana 
users. The medical literature was sparse, but in general seemed to 
be saying that there was no proof of long term harmful effects from 
marihuana. I summarized this for the reporter and said there was 
no proof of harm and that it probably should be legalized and con- 
trolled. In general, this view met with approval from most of the 
students and most of my professional colleagues. 

In 1965, the use of marihuana spread throughout the Berkeley 
campus. Simultaneously its use was spreading to all the colleges 
and universities across the country. From the campus communities 
it spread at an accelerating rate through the surrounding commu- 
nities. By now its use is subject to no age, social or geographic 

My place of observation was unique. I was there at the beginning 
and in my work I was actively involved with students not only as 
a psychiatrist but as a teacher, and as a participant in a 4-year 
research project studying maturation and growth, in college stu- 
dents. In addition, I was routinely meeting with deans and admin- 
istrators who were dealing with the drug problem and the students 


who were in academic and/or disciplinary difficulties as a consequence 
of the use of marihuana and its derivatives. 

Most importantly, I was in daily contact with the constant flow 
of students through the student health service and the psychiatric 
clinic and hospital. 

During the period I am speaking of, from 1965 to 1972, the clinic 
saw approximately 2,000 to 3,000 students a year as outpatients and 
about 150 to 200 students a year who were mentally ill enough to 
be hospitalized. Naturally, I didn't see all these students but the 
people who ministered to them were all under my supervision. I 
personally interviewed about 200 students a year; many were seen 
for a single hour, others were seen as intensively as 2 to 3 times a 
week for varying lengths of time up to and including 5 years. 

During this time, from 1965 to 1972, an increasing number of 
patients were using marihuana. My best guess, based on surveys 
and impressions is that more than 90 percent used it at one time or 
another in college. More than 50 percent used it "socially", approxi- 
mately 1 or 2 times a week; and about 10 percent were heavy users, 
at least 1 time daily. 

My first important shift in thinking occurred as a result of ob- 
servations made during psychotherapy with a young man, S., who 
was bright enough to be getting his law degree and Ph. D. simul- 
taneously and competent enough to be learning to fly and deal in 
real estate at the same time. As we proceeded in our work together, 
I came to know S.'s way of thinking; how he thought. Most of us 
do this without thinking about it. All of us come to know to some 
degree the way our friends and colleagues think. In therapy, the 
opportunity to hear someone think out loud about a problem im- 
portant to him maximizes the opportunity to come to know how he 
uses or misuses logic, remember clearly or not at all does or does 
not exercise good judgment about his own thinking and whether or 
not he is able to know his own feelings. We had made enough head- 
way so that S. had begun to be able to observe and understand his 
own thinking. Periodically we had hours, I was seeing him twice 
weekly, when his thinking became mushy. If I tried to follow him, 
my head began to spin. When I protested that he'd become impos- 
sible to listen to, he would argue that his own experience was that he 
was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever. On one 
such occasion, he mentioned that he had been to a party 2 nights 
before where he'd had particularly good "grass". In Berkeley, in 
1968, that was not a particularly memorable remark, but we thought 
there might be some connection with his thinking. This same series 
of events occurred often enough so that I finally was able at times to 
post diet that S. had had some "mind-expanding drug", usually 

S., because he was a good observer, helped show me another aspect 
of the thinking disorder I'm describing. Central to his difficulties 
was a paranoid stance toward the world. By this I mean a style 
of thinking characterized by a constant suspicion that one is being 


controlled, for example, by the establishment, the system, et cetera; 
and simultaneously a constant unwitting search for people and 
situations which will do just that; drugs, demagogues. If this man- 
ner of thinking is carried further, it blends into the condition 
usually called paranoia. Here the subject is controlled by voices, 
God, or whatever, and at the same time he is very often "against his 
will" being controlled by a State hospital or jail. S. was forever 
talking about his search for something or someone he could trust. 
He very frequently clutched to himself people who were totally un- 
trustworthy and hurt and rejected others who manifestedly ad- 
mired and liked him. 

When he had used marihuana, his thinking became more paranoid, 
that is, he became more mistrustful of me, for instance, and at the 
same time he became more wily so that he talked glibly, using cliches, 
theories, and "insights", all to avoid noticing concretely and imme- 
diately whatever he was really doing and feeling in his relationship 
with me, as well as his relationships outside. In short, the patho- 
logical part of his thinking was exaggerated in two ways, he was 
more suspicious, et cetera, and he was more adept at fooling himself 
about what he was up to, while simultaneously maintaining how 
"aware", "in touch" and "loving" he was. 

S. continued in therapy but also continued to use marihuana and 
hashish. Toward the end of his therapy, I had decided that so 
long as he muddled his thinking in this way, there was no use con- 
tinuing. He, however, suffered a fatal accident — as a result of an 
error in judgment — before his therapy actually terminated. 

As I was becoming familiar with these effects of marihuana on S., 
I gradually learned to pick up signs when they were more subtle. 
I came to observe the same changes in others, that is, that mari- 
huana exacerbated the pathological aspects of their thinking. 

These observations were made before controlled studies began to 
give us clues as to the nature of the mental changes taking place 
which could explain these phenomena. The committee has undoubt- 
edly heard or will hear of the studies by the Hollister group at 
Stanford on what they call "temporal disintegration" which seem to 
be changes secondary to the loss of immediate memory and the loss 
of an accurate time sense. There are also corroborating studies from 
Utah, clinical studies by Kolansky and Moore, X-ray studies by 
Campbell in England, and a study on students by Schwarz at the 
University of British Columbia to cite a few of the most relevant 
studies made on subjects comparable to the ones I'm describing. 

Following the above described observations, I saw the same pic- 
ture more and more frequently. The essence of the pattern is that 
with small amounts of marihuana, approximately three joints of 
street grade, memory and time sense are interfered with. With 
regular usage the active principles cause more and more distorted 
thinking. The user's field of interest gets narrower and narrower as 
he focuses his attention on immediate sensation. At the same time 
his dependence and tolerance is growing. As he uses more of the 


drug, his ability to think sequentially diminishes. Without his 
awareness, he becomes less and less adequate in areas where judg- 
ment, memory and logic are necessary. As this happens, he depends 
more and more on pathological patterns of thinking. Ultimately all 
heavy users, that is daily users, develop a paranoid way of thinking. 

After I had become aware of the generality of this sequence an- 
other reporter from the Daily Californian interviewed me to see if 
my opinions had changed in the interim. In the course of that inter- 
view, I realized in a concrete and explicit way that they had. The 
headline read, "Psychiatrist says pot smokers can't think straight". 
This time the response of the community and colleagues was not 
so approving. It is an interesting fact that questioning the claims of 
marihuana users leads to much more anger, vilification, and charac- 
ter assassination than does the opposite stance. 

In subsequent years in Berkeley, both at the clinic and in my 
private practice, I have observed the long-term effects of cannabis. 
Originally, my observation was that students who had "dropped 
out" into the "drug scene" and were attempting to return, were find- 
ing it difficult if not impossible. A frequent story is that the young 
person has become aware that the life he's been leading is unsatis- 
factory and unproductive. He then stops drugs for 6 months, or so, 
and reenters the university. When he returns to school, however, 
he finds that he can't think clearly and that, in ways he finds difficult 
to describe, he can't use his mind in the way he did before. Such 
people also seem to be aware that they have lost their will_ some- 
place, that to do something, to do anything, requires a gigantic 
effort — in short, they have become will-less, what we call anomic. 
An irony here is that they have now achieved the freedom they 
sought. They need an external director. They are ripe for a 

The changes in the capacity to think in some subjects are long 
lasting if not permanent. One of my original, 1967, subjects was a 
member of the junior faculty. He "dropped out" and used hashish 
exclusively for 18 months in daily doses. When he realized that it 
was interfering with his physical coordination he stopped all drugs. 
Two years subsequent to this he returned to the University. He 
found that he could not do mathematics at a level which he had 
found possible before; 3V 2 years later, his conviction was that the 
change was permanent. My own observations of him and other such 
gifted people have led me to the same conclusion, that is, that the 
damage may be permanent. 

My stance toward marihuana has shifted to the extent that I now 
think it is the most dangerous drug we must contend with for the 
following reasons: 

(1) Its early use is beguiling. It gives the illusion of feeling good. 
The user is not aware of the beginning loss of mental functioning. 
I have never seen an exception to the observation that marihuana 
impairs the user's ability to judge the loss of his own mental 


(2) After 1 to 3 years of continuous use the ability to think has 
become so impaired that pathological forms of thinking begin to 
take over the entire thought process. 

(3) Chronic heavy use leads to paranoid thinking. 

(4) Chronic heavy use leads to deterioration in body and mental 
functioning which is difficult and perhaps impossible to reverse. 

(5) For reasons which I can't elucidate here, its use leads to delu- 
sional system of thinking which has inherent in it the strong need to 
seduce and proselytize others. I have rarely seen a regular marihuana 
user who wasn't actively "pushing". 

As these people move into government, the professions, and the 
media, it is not surprising that they continue as "pushers", thus 
continuously adding to the confusion that this committee is com- 
mitted to ameliorate. 

That's the end of my formal statement. I want to document just 
briefly the last statement as to the extent, with examples of the 
kind of avalanche, of propaganda 

Mr. Martin. One clarification, Dr. Powelson, when you talk about 
pushers, you don't mean people going out selling it in the street, 
you mean ideological pushers? 

Dr. Powelson. That is the reason I put quotes around it. I am 
talking about people who don't sell it, who are actively engaged in 
getting other people to use it, that is what I am describing. When 
they become active in government, or professions, and so on, the 
same thinking process continues, it now becomes an ideological type 
of pushing. 

Mr. Martin. You mentioned several exhibits that you wish to 
offer for the record. 

Dr. Powelson. Yes; one of the most active groups is called 

Mr. Martin. These are groups that call for what — the legaliza- 
tion of marihuana? 

Dr. Powelson. The NORML group, called the National Organi- 
zation for the Reform of Marihuana Laws, they are pushing for 
legalization, as does the official handbook for marihuana users, "A 
Child's Garden of Grass". Let me read a few chapter headings ; "The 
Effects of Grass", "Grass As an Aphrodisiac", "Games To Play While 
Stoned", "Acquiring Grass", "Using Grass", "Stashing Grass". They 
put out a series of stamps with the words "Liberate Marihuana". Also 
a shoulder patch, tote bag, and a constant stream of propaganda 

Mr. Martin. That is the official insignia of the organization? 

Dr. Powelson. Yes, the insignia on the stamps, shoulder patch and 
tote bag. 

Senator Eastland. The documents will be admitted. 

[The documents referred to follow :] 





wildly funny examination of every aspect 
of the sub-culture which exists among the 
millions of marijuana users. When you finish 
this book you will know all there is to know 
about the use of the weed from first joint to 
final effect. A CHILD'S GARDEN GT 
GRASS covers: 




"Books about drugs are surely in, 
especially those dealing with mari- 
juana. None is more popular than 
"A Child's Garden of Grass." 
Gene Shalit, NBC's Today television 

"It has something to say to those 
who have, to those who haven't 
but want to, and even to those who don't 
want to but would like to stay informed." 
TIME Magazine 

" More sincerely helpful information about buying, growing, 
cleaning, smoking and eating grass than is available in nearly all the other pot 
books . . . perfect." Rolling Stone Magazine 




(National Organization for Reform of the Marijuana Law) 
































































































































































































Mr. Martin. Apart from NORML, are there any other organiza- 
tions involved in the lobbying to legalize marihuana? 

Dr. Powelson. Yes, sir, in California there is a group called 
"Amphoria", they are openly coming out for the advancement of 
marihuana. Some of the pernicious ones to my mind are the ones 
that pose as educational organizations, for instance the National 
Coordinating Council on Drug Education. It puts out a newsletter 
called "National Drug Reporter". It labels itself a non-profit drug 
education consortium of 130 national, professional, law enforcement, 
government, youth and service organizations and corporations, a co- 
ordinated effort to find rational approaches to drug abuse prevention. 
I think anyone looking at the newsletter gets the message very 
clearly that that is not what it is doing. It is passing out informa- 
tion which is essentially what I would call pushing. 

Mr. Martin. That is information in support of marihuana, or the 
legalization of marihuana, is that what you mean ? 

Dr. Powelson. That is all through the text. For instance, the 
books that they suggest are all promarihuana. Here is an item that 
I picked up because I am familiar with the group and know what 
they are talking about, "Review of the National Committee on 
Marihuana", sponsored by Amphoria, produced by Ray Films, inter- 
viewed the noted drug authority John Captain, Dr. Davis — it's 
available from Ashbury Films, 707 Kirby Street, San Francisco. 

I think it's not unfair to say this is a typical example 

Mr. Martin. Could you raise your voice a little, Dr. Powelson, 
when you talk? 

The organization you mentioned is the National Council for Drug 
Abuse ? 

Dr. Powelson. The National Coordinating Council for Drug 
Abuse Education. 

Mr. Martin. Do you know who the officers of that organization 

Dr. Powelson. The president is Paul Perito, the vice president is 
Michael Sonnenreich. 

Mr. Martin. Do you know who these gentlemen are? 

Dr. Powelson. The only one familiar to me is Michael Sonnen- 
reich, who was the executive director of the staff of the Shafer 
Commission, the President's Commission on Marihuana. 

Mr. Marten. It has been suggested by some people, Dr. Powelson, 
and among them Mr. Edward M. Brecker, a drug analyst for Con- 
sumers Union, that marihuana might be a more benign substitute 
for alcohol. I would like to quote a passage from Mr. Brecker and 
have your comment on it. Mr. Brecker said, "A knowledgeable 
society, noting a few years ago that some of its members were 
switching from alcohol to a less harmful intoxicant, marihuana, 
might have encouraged that trend. It may not be too late to present 
that simple public health message" 

What do you think about that? 

Dr. Powelson. Well, he is wrong on two counts, one is that it is 
not a substitute; it is, among the young people in particular, being 
used more and more together. 


Second, when used together, alcohol plus marihuana, they mutually 
reinforce each other. Finally, I don't agree that marihuana is a more 
benign drug than alcohol, I think it is more dangerous for the 
reasons I discussed, and others, too. 

Mr. Martin. Well, that runs counter, as you know, to the popular 
impression, that alcohol is far more dangerous. Can you give us any 
more reasons why you consider marihuana to be more dangerous than 
alcohol ? 

Dr. Powelson. The one I mentioned is the effect on thinking. 

Senator Eastland. Could you raise your voice a bit? 

Dr. Powelson. The one I mentioned is the effect on thinking. Sec- 
ond, marihuana, as used by the regular users, say it is used twice a 
week, the concentration in the brain is cumulative — it stays in the 
brain. So that people who are using marihuana are subclinically 
stoned all the time. 

Mr. Martin. Using marihuana how often — once a week — twice a 

Dr. Powelson. They then use one joint to raise the level of feeling 
again, but are still under the effect. Alcohol leaves within 24 hours, 
marihuana is in for days to months. Its effect on the brain is much 
more rapid than alcohol. The mental effect that I have been describ- 
ing from marihuana take in the neighborhood of 3 years. That 
much has been demonstrated. Alcohol takes ten times that time. It 
is also very probable that it causes lung cancer. 

Mr. Martin. It has been suggested, Dr. Powelson, that legaliza- 
tion might reduce marihuana consumption by depriving it of the 
"forbidden fruit" attraction. Do vou think there might be something 
to that? 

Dr. Powelson. No, I know of no evidence that that is true. I be- 
lieve that the law has several effects, one is, simply educational; it 
is also important for the people who don't want to use it that they 
be able to say to themselves or others that they are afraid of the 
consequences. So, I think the "forbidden fruit" theory has very little 
claim to plausibility. 

Mr. Martin. Would it be possible, in your opinion, to legalize 
marihuana, and keep hashish and liquid hashish illegal? 

Dr. Powelson. I see no way to do that. 

Mr. Martin. Do you believe in removing all penalties for simple 
possession for personal use, which is, as you know, one of the recom- 
mendations of the Shafer Commission? 

Dr. Powelson. No, I do not, for the reasons I already mentioned. 
I want to keep some kind of penalties, partly to retain the sanction, 
partly for educational reasons and partly for young people who 
want to stay away from it. 

Mr. Martin. What kinds of penalties would you suggest keeping? 

Dr. Powelson. Well, essentially the ones we have in California 
now. what they amount to is a misdemeanor for possession. The user, 
with a small amount, is put on probation with the _ provision of 
erasing the arrest from his record after a period of time after the 
probation is terminated. 

Mr. Martin. There are many reports, Dr. Powelson, over the past 


5 or 6 years, that high school teachers in all parts of the country 
have been confronted by a steady year-by-year decline in student per- 
formance. They find students are less motivated; students seem to 
find it more difficult to focus and understand; they work less; they 
are more unruly. The result has been that many teachers who used 
to enjoy teaching find the profession increasingly difficult and are 
thinking of getting out of it ; and this is supposed to be a nationwide 

In your judgment, could this phenomenon be related to the up- 
ward spiraling epidemic of cannabis use in high schools ? 

Dr. Powelson. I suppose it could be; I don't have any way of 
proving it, or knowing whether there is, or is not, a connection. T 
can answer concretely from my own experience that individuals, 
once they begin using cannabis, for a number of reasons their aca- 
demic performance falls off. No. 1, again, it interferes with their 
thinking at some point; No. 2, motivation becomes less and less. 
anybody can attest to that on a college campus or high school 
campus. The trouble is that there are so many other things going 
on simultaneously. I think one of the things about drugs, the younger 
the user, the more likely the effect will be— the effect on maturing 
and learning will be greater. That is, the younger the user, the 
greater the effect. 

Mr. Martin. You mentioned other factors and phenomena. What 
are the other factors? 

Dr. Powelson. The whole educational system is undergoing major 
changes. Just last week one member of the Berkeley School Board 
said in the process of choosing a new superintendent of the schools. 
"We are not interested in a superintendent of schools who wants 
to teach reading and writing; we are interested in a superintendent 
who wants to teach our kids how to seize power." And that was 
seconded by another member of the school board. 

The superintendent of schools, when he took office, said, "There 
are no failures of students, there are only teachers that are failures." 
When all the students heard that, of course, that was a prime kind 
of notice that they didn't have to try anymore. So, I think we have 
many alternatives. The schools in Berkeley are financed by the 
Federal Government. They don't teach reading and writing, they are 
teaching people to feel good. All of these things are going on, and 
I think the use of drugs and the deterioration of the school system 
are probably parallel and intertwined. 

Mr. Martin. You feel they go hand in hand? 

Dr. Powelson. I do. 

Mr. Martin. There are conflicting views, Dr. Powelson, as^ to 
whether or not marihuana leads to violence. What is your own view 
on this, based on your personal experience ? 

Dr. Powelson. The fact that there were exaggerated reports in 
the 1930's that were referred to by a previous witness, I agree to. 
On the other hand, I first believed that marihuana users, when they 
were high, they were cool and loving. I have come to see thatthis 
is an intermediate stage, fantasy, or illusion. They look amiable 


enough, but when you begin interfering with the use, to take it away 
from them, you can have a very ugly situation. 

My own experience is that with heavy users, when they are 
crossed in the area of their use of drugs, or their ideology, you run, 
as I said, into very ugly situations. 

Mr. Martin. That concludes my questioning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sourwine. May I ask a question of Dr. Powelson? 

Senator Eastland. Of course. 

Mr. Sourwine. Sir, my understanding of the summarization, what 
you told us with respect to decreasing performance among high 
school students and its possible relation to marihuana or cannabis 
use is, that a substantial number of students use the drug, and you 
know it will affect the downgrading of the average performance 
level. But, the fact that the average performance level goes down 
doesn't necessarily increase the use of hashish or marihuana; that 
might be caused by a number of other factors that you mentioned. 

Dr. Powelson. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You gave us a discussion of what appeared to be 
to me the overall effects of use of cannabis. You talked about a student 
designated as "S.", who continued to use marihuana and hashish. It 
wasn't clear whether he moved progressively first to larger quanti- 
ties of marihuana and then hashish. Is that the way it went? 

Dr. Powelson. It doesn't follow a pattern. This particular young 
man, he was also wealthy and spoiled, and he moved very fast from 
marihuana to hashish because he was looking for highs, he didn't 
"progress." The usual pattern, I would say. is using low-grade qual- 
ity, and then, as people become tolerant, they are looking for more 
and more highs, and they are moving gradually from better quality 
marihuana to hashish. But some people jump immediately from 
one to the other. This particular person jumped immediately from 
marihuana to hashish. 

Mr. Sourwine. One final question, sir. You discussed an increasing 
number of patients who were found to be using marihuana. Now, 
there was at the same time, from 1965 to 1972 an increased use of 
marihuana in the entire student body; was there not? 

Dr. Powelson. That is correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you relate in any way the percentage of in- 
crease, or the degree of progression in the student body, to the per- 
centage of increase or degree of possession of marihuana among your 
psychiatric patients? 

Dr. Powelson. We did surveys all the way through, in which we 
compared our students in the student health service, in the psychiatric 
clinic, with the general population, and we never found any differ- 
ence. The students in the Student Health Service were not using any 
more, or any less, than the general population. 

Mr. Sourwine. In other words, you are saying you were examining 
more psychiatric patients who used marihuana because there were 
more users among the student body as a whole, rather than because 
marihuana made them psychiatric patients. 

Dr. Powelson. That is correct. 

33-371 O - 74 - 4 


Mr. Sourwine. Thank you. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Martin. Our next witness will be Dr. Henry Brill. Would 
you come forward? You have a prepared statement, Dr. Brill, on 
your qualifications, so it won't be necessary for me to question you 
on your qualifications. 

Dr. Brill. Thank you. 

Mr. Martin. Would you identify yourself? 


Dr. Brill. I am Dr. Henry Brill of West Brentwood, Long Island, 
N.Y., where I am regional director in the New York State Depart- 
ment of Mental Hygiene. 

I have submitted a curriculum vitae which states my qualifications 
in the field of drug dependence. These qualifications include past or 
present membership and/or chairmanship of the American Medical 
Association, the World Health Organization, and the FDA. I also 
had for almost a decade major responsibility for the development of 
the narcotic treatment program for New York State. 

I am here today as an individual and not as a representative of 
any organization, but I was a member of the National Commission 
on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 1 throughout its period of operation, 
and I am concerned about the misinterpretations which have devel- 
oped with respect to the marihuana report of that Commission. These 
misinterpretations result from reading the reassuring passages in 
the report and ignoring the final conclusions and recommendations, 
and the passages in the report on which they were based. As a re- 
sult it has been claimed that the Commission's report was intended 
to give marihuana a clean bill of health, and as a covert, or indirect 
support for legalization of this drug in the near future, or as a step 
in that direction. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

From mv knowledge of the proceedings of the Commission, I can 
reaffirm that the report and the subsequent statements by the Com- 
mission meant exactly what they said, namely that this drug should 
not be legalized, that control measures for trafficking in the drug 
were necessary and should be continued, and that use of this drug 
should be discouraged because of its potential hazards. 

Mitigation or abolition of penalties relating to private use were 
recommended purelv on practical and humane grounds. The position 
is clearly stated in the closing pages of the first Report "Marihuana— 
A Signal of Misunderstanding", specifically on pages 150-178. 
Among the cautionary statements one can list the comments on hazards 
of prolonged and heavy use, on page 66; the paragraphs on be- 
havioral effects, psvchological dependence, and possible organ dam- 
age and psychosis," page 59 ; and the hazards of further spread of 
the habit, on pas;e 82 ; the notes on the amotivational syndrome, page 
86 ; and the association of marihuana use with other drug use, page 
46. On pages 119 and 120 we find an account of the consensus of 

i Marihuana— A Signal of Misunderstanding— First Report of the National Commission 
on Marihuana and Drug Abuse ; U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.. 1972. 


the medical profession that marihuana use constitutes a hazard to 
the individual, that the drug should not be legalized, and that m re 
research is needed. On page 175 we find a statement concerning the 
need to detect and punish persons operating vehicles and other dan- 
gerous equipment under the influence of marihuana. 

Contrary to what has been claimed there never was any intention 
to indicate in the Commission's report that we already knew enough 
about marihuana in 1972 to justify its legalization. Instead a major 
section of the report is devoted to the need for more research. 

In summary I would say that I found myself in complete agree- 
ment with the conclusions of the Commission and my attitude was 
reinforced by personal observations in mental hospitals here and in 
Greece, Morocco, and Jamaica during my work with the National 
Marihuana Commission. 

Scientific reports which have become available since the report 
was written confirm still further the need for caution. The newer 
data includes clinical reports which have continued to become avail- 
able concerning complications of acute and chronic use; descriptions 
of mental deterioration and acute psychotic attacks 2 3 after cannabis 
in reports from India ; evidence of high incidence of impaired lung 
function ; 4 further data on flashbacks in LSD users which seem to be 
associated with subsequent marihuana use; 5 and reports of acute 
psychotic reactions from even small amounts of cannabis in certain 

Finally, one should note the comment from Jamaica 6 7 in the West 
Indies where the effects of cannabis had been thought to be rela- 
tively benign; among the middle class it is now found to be asso- 
ciated with school dropouts, transient phychoses, panic states, and 
adolescent behavior disorders. In general the effects of the drug 
continue to be noted as subtle and insidious. I would like to empha- 
size that one way to describe the effect of cannabis : it^ is subtle 
and insidious, but harmful reactions in the heart and circulatory 
system are suspected, and there are indications of adverse reaction 
in the body's anti-infection chemistry. 8 

Finally, some older issues are being reopened and evidence is that 
physical dependence does occur with very heavy use and that with- 
drawal leads to physical sickness in man and in animals. 9 These are 
but a few illustrations chosen almost at random to show that the 
latest scientific literature strongly supports the cautionary position 
of the Commission. I may add that in my own view marihuana must 
still be classed as a dangerous drug, dangerous to enough people to 

2 Psychotic Reactions Following Cannabis Use in East Indies, G. S. Chopra and J. W. 
Smith'; Arch. Gen Psychiatry, Vol. 30, January 1974, p. 24-27. 

3 Bhang Psychosis, V. R. Thacore : B. Jour. Psychiatry (1973) 123, p. 225-229 

4 Adverse Reactions Associated with Cannabis Products in India, Wm. Grossman: 
Annals of Internal Med. 70: (3) 529-533,1969. 

5 Marihuana Flashbacks, M. D. Stanton; Amer. Jour, of Psychiatry, 130: 12, Dec. 19T8, 
p. 1399-1400. „ _ ,_ T , „„ . . 

9 Australia-New Zealand Meeting. Report of paper by M. Beaubrun ; Jamaica Psychi- 
atric News, December 19, 1973, p. 9. M , „,,.,„ m „„ f 

•Drug Abuse in Different Cultural Grouns in Jamaica — Summary for Oct. 15-19 meet- 
ing, Svdney, Australia, M. J. Beaubrun; Mimeo (undated). 

8 Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marihuana Smokers, G. Nahas ; bcience, 

6 » Tolerance to and Dependence on Cannabis, S. Kaymakcalan ; Bull, on Narcotics. Vol. 
XXV, No. 4, December 1973, p. 39-47. 


warrant full control. I don't distinguish sharply between hashish and 
marihuana; these are different concentrations of the same principle. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would now be 
pleased to answer any questions which you and the committee may 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Dr. Brill. 

You said you were concerned over the misinterpretations that de- 
veloped with respect to the Shafer Commission report. I want to 
quote what you said, "These misinterpretations result from reading 
the reassuring passages in the report, and ignoring the final con- 
clusions and recommendations." 

Now, who was responsible for these misinterpretations, was it the 
media, was it the academic community, promarihuana pressure 
groups ? 

Dr. Brill. It is hard to point the finger at anybody, but I think 
there is a great deal of wishful thinking involved; and a lot of 
people wish that this source of pleasure were completely harmless, 
and therefore it was rather easy to believe in it, and to shut off all 
negative information that might be available. 

Mr. Martin. Can you give us a clearer idea of what you have in 

Dr. Brill. Yes, I think it also could be said that the information 
which has been available in the public media in the last year or two 
has tended to emphasize the harmlessness of marihuana, and to 
understate the other side of it. 

Mr. Martin. To get a clearer idea of what you had in mind by 
this statement, Dr. Brill, I would like to ask a few questions on an 
article on the Shafer Commission's report, which appeared in the 
U.S. News and World Report on April 7, 1972. The heading on this 
article was, "Evils of Marihuana — More Fantasy Than Fact?" Do 
you think that conveyed a fair representation of the essential thrust 
of the report? 

Dr. Brill. I don't think it did. I think it could mislead, especially 
in view of the "wishful thinking" that many people had in this field. 

Mr. Martin. Let me quote a few items selected by the U.S. News 
from the report, and ask for your comments on that. The article in 
U.S. News quoted the report as saying, "Cannabis does not lead to 
physical dependency. No tortuous withdrawal syndrome follows the 
sudden cessation of chronic heavy use of marihuana." Has that been 
established in any way in recent research ? 

Dr. Brill. Yes, there is a recent publication, and I think I have 
given you a reference on the subject, a publication in the U.N. 
Bulletin on Narcotics, which indicates that after heavy administra- 
tion real withdrawal symptoms can be elicited in animals, monkeys; 
and there is a strong suspicion they do occur in human beings. 
However, in all fairness, ordinary level use does not produce physi- 
cal withdrawal symptoms. It does, however, in some people, lead to 
a considerable amount of irritability; and Dr. Powelson mentioned 

Mr. Martin. Irritability which could be translated into violence 
under certain circumstances? 


Dr. Brill. Well, among certain people under certain circumstances. 
I am not convinced that as a drug marihuana specifically is marked 
by violence in our culture. Other cultures have described it, and 
that is a curious contradiction that still remains to be clarified. 

Mr. Martin. The second question on the U.S. News article: The 
article says : "Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use 
significantly impairs driving ability or performance." In the light of 
recent research, pointing to some serious defects in driving ability, 
don't you agree that this finding might have to be reconsidered ? 

Dr. Brill. I think it may well have to be reconsidered, but I would 
want to see it proven that the drug is safe for driving under field 
conditions. We have enough hazards on the roads without taking 
chances with intoxicants. That still remains to be tested in the lab- 
oratories to the satisfaction of some people. It stands to reason that 
an individual who is intoxicated with a substance that interferes 
with measurement of time and distance, that may produce hallucina- 
tions, may very well be a hazard on the road. 

May I add one more thing. We had an interview with a mari- 
huana using group in Chicago when I was with the Commission. We 
point blank asked them what they thought about having people 
ride motorcycles under the influence of marihuana; and these were 
marihuana users, middle-class cultured people. They agreed com- 
pletely that that was not a good mixture, and they would not approve 
of it. So, they must from their own personal experience have felt 
there must be some interference with efficiency. 

Mr. Martin. That would correspond with the knowledge that 
every drinker has when he is intoxicated — that he doesn't drive as 
well when he is under the influence of alcohol? 

Dr. Brill. I think so. 

Mr. Martin. On the nature of the epidemic in the United States, 
the U.S. News quoted the following paragraph, "We are inclined 
to believe that the present interest in marihuana is transient, and 
will diminish in time of its own accord, once the symbolic aspect 
of use is deemphasized, leaving among our population a relatively 
small coterie of users." 

Wouldn't you say that the statistics that were presented here today 
suggest that things may be moving in the opposite direction? 

Dr. Brill. I am afraid they do. Of course all drug abuse, if you 
want to call it that, all use of drugs for social and recreational pur- 
poses has a fad-like quality to it; but there is no evidence that was 
presented here today to indicate that we are in a downswing. 

Mr. Martin. From the several replies you have given, Dr. Brill, 
it is apparent you believe that new scientific evidence which has 
emerged since your report was written — it was written in late 1971, 
beginning of 1972 — would make it necessary to reconsider a number 
of your findings and recommendations. Is that a correct statement? 

Dr. Brill. Well, when the report was written we fully recognized 
that the conclusions would have to be reconsidered in the light of 
advancing knowledge. Knowledge is advancing, and I think that all 
these conclusions could very well be subject to reconsideration as 
time goes on, yes. 


Mr. Martin. Do you feel, for example, that this new knowledge- 
might perhaps point to the need for reconsidering the Commission's 
recommendation that all penalties be removed for simple possession 
of small quantities of marihuana? Would you for example now 
favor, as Dr. Powelson apparently does, the retention of some minor 
penalty for possession, perhaps a warning the first time, a fine the 
second time, a stiffer fine the third time, and so on? 

Dr. Brill. I might very well, although I must admit that I don't 
pretend to have any knowledge of the law, or the effectiveness of the 
law in this field. So, I intend to restrict my comments to what the 
hazards are. How they are to be viewed by the law really would 
fall outside my domain. 

But as an outsider I would have to agree that some kind of a 
minor penalty might very well be considered. 

Mr. Martin. Would it be correct to infer from the answer you 
have already given, Doctor, that if the Shafer Report would be re- 
issued today in an updated version, you would consider it important 
to extend the report to include references to the recent research you 
referred to, and perhaps amend some of your recommendations in 
light of this research? 

Dr. Brill. It is hard to second-guess a group like the Commis- 
sion; but as to the first part of your statement, it is certainly true, 
it would have to be brought up to date. How that would influence 
the final outcome I wouldn't be able to say. And in making this 
reply, I have in mind the long, extensive discussions that occurred. 
These conclusions were not hatched out extemporanously, they were 
the result of a great deal of discussion and thought. 

Mr. Martin. In your statement you used the words "insidious and 
subtle" — the phrase "insidious and subtle" — to describe the effects of 
cannabis. Could you spell out in some more detail what you mean 
by "insidious and subtle"? 

Dr. Brill. Dr. Powelson has already referred to one aspect, and 
that is the chronic effects of cannabis. The chronic disabling effect 
of alcohol tends to become fully apparent after 10 to 20 or more 
years after excessive alcohol abuse, whereas in the case of cannabis 
this slides in insidiously, and within 2 or 3 years an individual has 
problems, and it takes some technical and professional experience to 
realize where this came from because the symptoms look like a 
rather nonspecific loss of social and economic capacity, and nonspe- 
cific general withdrawal from the competitive life; and^ a general 
tendency to be lost in pseudo-elevated forms of conversation, a syn- 
drome which doesn't point to anything in particular unless one is 
familiar with this drug. 

Now, in the acute effects, the short-term effects, especially when 
small doses are used, there is very little to see; only when heavy doses 
are used, when there are pathological intoxications can one see a 
real explosive immediate effect. 

Now, contrast that to alcohol where an acute intoxication leads 
to slurred speech, ataxia, and symptoms that can be picked up im- 
mediately, including the odor on the breath. It is far more difficult 
to identify someone equally intoxicated from marihuana. He can 


straighten up and with an effort of will can really compensate for 
all of the disabilities to superficial examination. 

Mr. Martin. You made the point, Dr. Brill, that the media in 
general covered the report of the Shafer Commission in a one- 
sided manner, that they ignored, or misrepresented in some cases the 
basic thrust of your report. Has this one-sidedness carried over to 
other areas? Would you agree or disagree, for example, with the 
chairman's opening statement, and I want to quote what he said, 
"There has been widespread publicity for writings and research 
advocating a more tolerant attitude towards marihuana, while there 
has been little or no publicity for writings or research which point 
to serious adverse consequences." 

Dr. Brill. As I read what is in the media, and hear it, I must 
admit that the favorable side for marihuana is more heavily pre- 
sented than the unfavorable side. I can't agree with this kind of 
emphasis ; I think it needs more balance. There have been both sides 
presented in many cases, but overall I am afraid that the statement 
is quite correct. 

Mr. Martin. The chairman also said in his opening statement the 
purpose of these hearings was to present the other side, the side that 
by and large has not been heard by the Congress and the American 
people, so that both the Congress and people would have an under- 
standing of both sides of this controversy. 

Would you concur in the judgment that the presentation of the 
other side is badly needed? 

Dr. Brill. I think it is. I think it needs to be emphasized. The 
Commission report, I thought, presented a fairly balanced picture; 
but what emerged from it, in the public consciousness, was quite un- 
balanced. So, I would completely agree: the negative side of this 
picture, the unpleasant side, has to be faced. 

Mr. Martin. The subcommittee has received evidence that noted 
scientists whose research and analyses pointing to serious adverse 
consequences have come under violent personal attack, including 
public and private harassment from members of promarihuana 
lobbies, and even members of the scientific community associated 
with the promarihuana lobby. Do you have any personal knowledge 
of such attacks on fellow scientists? 

Dr. Brill. I have seen this happen on several occasions, yes; I 
was quite distressed by it. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Mr. Sourwine. Sir, Tom what } T ou have just told us about physi- 
cal dependency among heavy users of cannabis, and withdrawal 
effects, is it fair to summarize by saying that in light of all that is 
now known on the subject, it is not scientifically correct to call 
cannabis, marihuana or hashish, a nonaddictive drug? 

Dr. Brill. That is a very difficult scientific question to answer; it 
can produce physical dependence, so I think if this information is 
confirmed by subsequent studies, then we will have to revise our 
opinion. But, it would be premature to make a major change on 
the basis of the very few studies that are as yet available. 

Mr. Sourwine. Dr. Brill, in an area like this, and attempting to 


form a judgment about an issue such as this, isn't it true that it's 
not a question of a popularity contest, or a vote; if no ill effects are 
found in the drug over a period of sufficient time with enough in- 
vestigations and experiments, then we may say that it is a safe 
drug. But, as soon as you do find under controlled experiments, 
properly carried out, evidence of danger, you may no longer call 
it a safe drug; is that correct? 

Dr. Brill. I think that is entirely correct, but I must say that the 
argument, where the line is drawn about how safe, or how unsafe — 
my own personal opinion is that this is sufficiently unsafe, so that 
it should not be legalized. There are some people who say that no 
drug is safe, all drugs are unsafe, all drugs are the same. I think 
this is misleading, and I think that this drug is unsafe for enough 
people, so that it should not be made generally available. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have no further questions. 

Senator Eastland. Thank you, Dr. Brill. 

Mr. Martin. Our next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Dr. Donald 
B. Louria from the New Jersey Medical School. Dr. Louria, would 
you come forward? 


Dr. Louria. I am Donald B. Louria, professor and chairman, De- 
partment of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, New Jer- 
sey Medical School, Newark, N.J. 

Mr. Martin. I would like to ask you a few more questions for the 
purpose of establishing your qualifications, Dr. Louria. You are a 
graduate, cum laude, of the Harvard Medical School in 1953? 

Dr. Louria. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. You served as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Narcotics of the Medical Society of New York County from 1965 
to 1966? 

Dr. Louria. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. You served on the Council of the Committee on Alco- 
holism and Drug Abuse, Medical Society of the State of New York 
from 1966 to 1969? 

Dr. Louria. That's right. 

Mr. Martin. You were chairman and president of the New York 
State Council on Drug Addiction from 1965 to 1972? 

Dr. Louria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. You are the author of three books on drugs, "Night- 
mare Drugs", "The Drug Scene", and "Overcoming Drugs"? 

Dr. Louria. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Dr. Louria, will you proceed 
with your prepared statement? 

Dr. Louria. I have been asked to briefly review the epidemiology 
of drug abuse in this country from the point of where we are and 
how we got there. 

In the 1930's, the major problem was, of course, heroin, and the 
evidence suggests that this drug, used primarily within economi- 


cally deprived communities represented an escape from psychological 
pain or from the depressing effects of a relentlessly bleak environ- 
ment. In striking contrast, the startling epidemic of the 1960's and 
early 1970's in which marihuana, LSD, and heroin were all partici- 
pants, was propelled by a virtually monolithic hedonistic focus in the 
United States. This dominance of the search for pleasure has been 
abetted by our marvelous communications proficiency that permits any 
given fad to spread throughout the country virtually instantaneously. 

The division of Drug Abuse and Biostatistics of the Department 
of Preventive Medicine and Community Health at the New Jersey 
Medical School in Newark have been analyzing the nature and sever- 
ity of the drug scene in suburban communities in northern New 
Jersey for the past 5 years. These surveys of some 20,000 teenagers 
have been conducted by cross-sectional analysis in a substantial num- 
ber of junior and senior high schools and by longitudinal analysis 
in two communities. 

The data show that the three major reasons listed by the students 
for drug use — the influence of the peer group, curiosity, and the 
search for pleasure — have not changed during that 5-year period. 
Interestingly, if one looks at over 20 factors that to a greater or lesser 
extent promote drug use, the statistical evidence shows that far and 
away the most important is the influence of the peer group. 

The studies performed longitudinally suggest that the use of 
illicit drugs is reaching a plateau in this country. I am talking 
now primarily about our own studies, and what we found in the 
past couple of years is conversant with most of the other studies in 
the country. The results can be best illustrated by looking at the 
results of a recent questionnaire study of grades 10, 11, and 12 in 
one high school. In the survey conducted during the last academic 
year grade 12 — last year's seniors — showed an increase in use of a 
variety of drugs, including marihuana, hashish, LSD, and cocaine. 
Grade 11 was substantially different, there was a continuing in- 
crease in marihuana use, but use of every other drug was stable. In 
grade 10, marihuana use was stable and use of all other illicit drugs 
declined. These are extremely encouraging results, the first we have 
seen since the start of this epidemic. There is at present no reason for 
either precipitous or hysterical action on the one hand, or insouci- 
ance on the other. 

Three of the trends are particularly worthy of note: 

First, it appears that the slope of the curve of increasing use in 
grades 11 and 12 has flattened; that is, the rate of increase in the 
last year has slowed. 

Second, there is a substantial decrease in the ratio of regular or 
weekly use of marihuana to experimentation with this drug. In 
other words, there are more people who are experimenting but rela- 
tively fewer who are regular users. Furthermore, there is increasing 
evidence that the relationship of marihuana to other drugs is dimin- 
ishing. There continues to be a great deal of experimentation with 
marihuana, but a smaller percentage of marihuana experimenters 
will utilize drugs such as hashish. So, I think in terms of the cur- 
rent epidemiologic studies it is improper to suggest that virtually 


everybody who uses marihuana will also play around with hashish. 
Certainly in our study that is not true, and the figure— marihuana 
smokers who use hashish— ranges from 12 to about 50 percent, de- 
pending on the school group studied. 

Third, the girls have, by and large, now caught up to the boys, 
and in some areas surpassed them in overall prevalence of non- 
medical drug use. 

In regard to marihuana, there is, of course, a continuing contro- 
versy over its legalization. It seems to me that, thus far, the deci- 
sions have been made without serious consideration of the two maior 
issues. Surely, we would all agree the drug is neither horrendouslv 
dangerous nor perfectly safe, but this has been known for oyer 100 
years. The two egregiously neglected issues are (a) the relationship 
between use of marihuana and the use of a drug such as LSD, and 
(b) the number of intoxicants we wish for general use in our society. 

We have been particularly interested in seeing whether there is 
a relationship between the frequency of marihuana use and subse- 
quent use of LSD. We have carried out three epidemiologic studies, 
all of which show similar results and are appended as graphs 1 to 
4. It may be seen that the more often marihuana is used, the more 
likely it is that an individual will experiment at least once with 
LSD. In one of the three studies, for example, the infrequent user 
of marihuana had a 4 percent likelihood of using LSD; for the 
monthly user, the chance of using LSD increased to 9 percent; the 
weekly marihuana user had a 22 percent likelihood of experimenting 
with LSD, and among those who used marihuana more than once per 
week, the likelihood of trying LSD increased to 44 percent. The results 
in the other two studies we have carried out were similar. In fact the 
daily marihuana user in the studies we performed, and various studies 
across the country that were performed has a likelihood of using 
LSD somewhere between 65 and 85 percent. 

Mr. Sottrwine. In the use of LSD? 

Dr. Lotjria. Eight. 

In the absence of contravening data and in the presence of other 
supporting studies, the relationship we have found between mari- 
huana and the more dangerous drug, LSD, appears reasonablv 
secure. We do not imply that marihuana use compels use of more 
dangerous drugs. In fact, excluding the daily marihuana user, the 
majority of those smoking marihuana will not use LSD or similar 
drugs. Furthermore, as I emphasized before, our data suggest that 
the relationship between marihuana and hashish, or marihuana and 
LSD is actually diminishing, not increasing, as far as our studies 
are concerned. 

However, the relationship between regular use of marihuana and 
the use of LSD subsequently does exist ; and this fact virtually man- 
dates further analyses. We obviously must look at the possible rea- 
sons for this relationship, and we must ask ourselves whether mari- 
huana legalization would inadvertently bring with it the increased 
use of more dangerous agents such as LSD. In any case, we should 
not legalize it until we have carefully looked at the relationship and 
decided precisely what it means, and what it portends. 


The second major issue to me is the overriding one. This is the 
number of intoxicants we wish in our society. Currently, we have 
three major legal drugs of pleasure, caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. 
Caffeine is relatively safe; nicotine is said to cost us between 60,000 
and 300,000 deaths and $19 billion in economic loss each year; alco- 
hol costs us at least 40,000 and probably nearer 100,000 lives yearly 
and at least $15 billion in economic loss per year. The question is. 
do we wish to add a fourth intoxicant, marihuana, to our other three ? 

If we do legalize marihuana, we will impose this fourth intoxicant 
on our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, for once a 
new intoxicant is legitimatized and accepted by the public, it can- 
not subsequently be arbitrarily proscribed. That is what we learned 
from prohibition. The obvious question is, how many intoxicants can 
we have for general use and still remain a vigorous and productive- 
society? No society can afford an unlimited number of unrestricted 
intoxicants. It seems to me we need to consider this very carefullv 
indeed. George Bernard Shaw said, "We are made wise not by the 
recollections of our past but by the responsibilities of our future." 
It is not our present pleasures that should be our major concern, 
but rather the effect a fourth legal intoxicant will have on the well- 
being, happiness and prosperity of future generations. 

It is important to stress that the only question before our societv 
is whether to add new intoxicants to those already troubling us. I 
personally believe this is the wrong question. What we should be 
considering is substitution of less toxic pleasure-giving substances 
for alcohol and/or tobacco. It is after all somewhat mind-boggling 
to realize that in the United States there are about 2 million deaths 
each year and that somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of these can 
be directly or indirectly attributed to alcohol and tobacco. 

In preparation for this I rearranged some of our fatality statistics 
for each year and came up with some data intriguing to me, namely 
that our legal intoxicants cause more deaths than all diseases, in- 
cluding pneumonia and tuberculosis reported yearly by the Center 
for Disease Control. Indeed, if we do rearrange these figures to 
allow these intoxicants as listed as a cause of death, the five leading 
causes of death in the United States are: (1) heart disease, (2) cancer, 
(3) stroke, (4) legal intoxicants, and (5) accidents. And we are talk- 
ing about adding more intoxicants. 

It seems to me only prudent and logical to concentrate more on 
reducing the morbidity and mortality from legal intoxicants before 
adding new ones with their own dangers. The only new intoxicant 
that could be added without much debate would be the one that is 
turly harmless and marihuana is clearly not innocuous. I personallv 
would like to see us consider substituting two less toxic agents for 
alcohol and tobacco, or alternatively, we could consider substituting 
marihuana for alcohol and modifying tobacco to reduce its cardio- 
vascular toxicity and its cancer causing proclivities. 

Whatever the decision, it should be based on a careful and dis- 
passionate consideration of the number of intoxicants available in 
our society, their relative risks, and our legitimate needs for mind- 
altering, pleasure-giving substances. I do not feel there is anything 
particularly arcane or complicated about the marihuana issue. Surely, 


we ought to be able to approach it intelligently, make sensible deci- 
sions and then utilize our energies to solve the far more important 
problems facing our society, which, if allowed to fester, threaten 
both our meliorism and our future. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Dr. Louria. Before I proceed 
with the questions, I believe you provided some charts, the first of 
which is the relation of frequency of marihuana use to likelihood 
of LSD use. 

Dr. Louria. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. It shows an upward curve — the more marihuana is 
smoked, the more likely they are to indulge, experimentally or re- 
peatedly, in LSD use. Why do you think there is a special relationship 
between marihuana use and LSD use? 

Dr. Louria. Let me emphasize first that we have two somewhat 
opposing trends. One is, as I indicated in my testimony, that experi- 
mentation continues, although leveling off; and within the experiment- 
ing group the relationship between occasional experimentation with 
marihuana and utilization of the other drugs is diminishing, not 

On the other hand, among those who utilize marihuana regularly, 
the relationship between that and the utilization of LSD persists. 

Now, your question is why, and we don't have the answer, and 
nobody else has the answer. I think we can say that the first graph 
indicates that this is by and large a straight line relationship; the 
more frequently you use marihuana, the more the likelihood is that 
you will use LSD ; there is a clear statistical correlation. 

Does this mean that marihuana drives one to LSD? Of course 
not. There are at least seven potential reasons to explain this rela- 
tionship, and in fact two of them could be utilized favorably in the 
argument for legalization of marihuana; those two include first the 
concept of the thrill of illegality. In other words, once you use the 
drug you then are beyond the pale of what is accepted as normal 
in society; and it is more easy then for you to slip into the use of 
other illegal drugs. 

Second, the same person who sells you marihuana sells you LSD, 
therefore, remove marihuana from the illegal relationship with LSD 
and you break that chain. 

The other five potential reasons would, to me anyway, militate 
against the legalization of marihuana. The first of these is curiosity, 
one of the major reasons for the use of illicit pleasure-giving drugs 
in our society. An ancient saying that goes, "A man should live if 
only to satisfy his curiosity". That in itself may explain a good deal 
of this relationship. 

Second is hedonism — that is we are very much a pleasure-oriented 
society that has a great deal of difficulty in subordinating its pleas- 
ure to goal-directed activities. And if a society is concentrating as 
much as we are on pleasure, it's almost inevitable that those who 
enjoy mind alteration of one kind, such as marihuana, and use it 
regularly, will opt for more potent drugs that produce similar 

Third is the influence of the peer group. Our study, and every 
study performed across the country, indicates that if you are in a 


multidrug using peer group you are much more likely to be a multi- 
drug user. 

Fourth, I think that 10 years from now we might find that there 
are valid biochemical or physiologic interrelationships between a 
drug such as marihuana, and a drug such as LSD. I emphasize, there 
is not one iota of evidence now to support that hypothesis, but I 
think it is possible that there is a relationship. 

Fifth, I think it is terribly important to emphasize that at least 
in our experience and the experience of others, among those with 
substantial covert or overt psychological abnormalities use of one 
drug is often followed rapidly by multidrug use. I have always felt 
that those who urge the legalization of marihuana were frequently 
at least suggesting that an individual could always decide his drug 
use on a volitional, carefully thought out basis. That just is not true 
for people who have psychological problems. We have found that 
they are often virtually propelled into severe multidrug use. 

Again, I have to emphasize that we have no specific knowledge 
why this relationship between marihuana and LSD exists. What 
bothers me — and I must say it bothers me about the Commission 
report, as I testified before, is that the report talked about an ana- 
chronistic and invalid relationship between marihuana and heroin. 
We always maintained there was no significant relationship be- 
tween marihuana use and heroin use, and that is still true; but for 
the life of me I can't understand why the National Commission 
would hear noncontravened testimony on the relationship between 
a different drug, LSD and not even mention it in the report, in- 
stead discussing only this old relationship long shown to be invalid, 
between marihuana and heroin. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Louria, I will just ask a few more quick ques- 
tions. We have one more witness, and we will have to move on as 
rapidly as possible. 

There seems to be a rather basic conflict between the picture you 
presented — a tapering off of the cannabis epidemic at the high 
school level — and the statistics that were presented here this after- 
noon by the Drug Enforcement Agency, showing a massive increase 
in interdiction of both marihuana and hashish, going up year by 
year; and also a massive increase in the number of arrests on the 
Federal and local levels for cannabis offenses. 

Could there be some explanation for this? For example, in your 
own report you made the point that girls are now using a lot more 
marihuana than they used to, and have caught up pretty well with 
the boys. So, while the boys have tapered off, the girls may have 
compensated ? 

Dr. Louria. That is true. 

Mr. Martin. In addition to that, your report doesn't make any 
reference to the phenomenon of marihuana increase in grade schools, 
and actually there is very little research material on that? I think 
you will agree with that. 

Dr. Louria. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. We know it's there, we know that a lot of it has 
gotten down to the fourth and fifth grade level; but we don't have 
any statistics on it. 


Dr. Louria. Well- 

Mr. Martin. There is a substantial amount of marihuana beinsr 
consumed at the grade school level, but we don't have any serious 
calculations on that, or estimates ; would you agree with that ? 

Dr. Louria. I would agree with that to the extent that we have 
studied junior high schools. 

Mr. Martin. I am talking about grade schools. 

Dr. Louria. Well, we find the utilization in the suburban, pre- 
dominantly white schools that we studied in the junior high schools, 
of small amounts. So, there was no reason at all in our commu- 
nities to study grade schools. I personally think there is exaggera- 
tion about how severe the problem is in the grade schools. At least 
in the majority of communities it is really a very small problem. 
And as a matter of fact, there is nothing inconsistent with the data 
developed by the law enforcement agencies. We are measuring differ- 
ent things and there are bound to be discrepancies until the pheno- 
mena are analyzed over a prolonged period. So, I don't see any dis- 
parity between those data, and the data I presented. 

Mr. Martin. One more question. There is another unmeasured 
area. It is generally agreed that marihuana has also moved upward 
into the ranks of adult society. People are now indulging in both 
marihuana and hashish, something they didn't do 10 years ago. The 
estimates that have been made, surveys that have been conducted, 
by and large don't touch this group. This is another area where 
there may have been a substantial increase in cannabis use without 
any accurate ability to accurately assess it. 

Dr. Louria. Oh, yes; I don't think there is any question about 
that, a substantial part of the increase you have. been talking about 
may be related to chronic, but not ordinarily heavy use in the post- 
college age. 

Mr. Martin. Right. One final question, and then we will have to 
move on to our next witness. 

You spoke of the possibility of substituting marihuana for alcohol 
as an intoxicant. Do you think that is a realistic proposal in view 
of the political and social and other difficulties affecting such a 
substitution ? 

Dr. Louria. No, I don't think that is likely going to come to pass, 
and I would personally oppose it on the grounds that marihuana 
isn't safe enough to be substituted for alcohol. The only point I 
would like to stress is that I don't think we can look at marihuana 
in a parochial fashion. You have to do it in terms of our total in- 
toxicants, and the question of substitution to me is a very germane 
one. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why a society allegedly as 
intelligent as ours should tolerate hundreds of thousands of deaths 
a year due to our legitimate intoxicants. I think there is something 
we can do about that, either by substitution, or more effective 

Mr. Martin. But not by the substitution of marihuana? 

Dr. Louria. No, I just put that in as something that people talk 
about. My own convictions, are parallel to the other witnesses this 
morning, especially what Dr. Brill just said, namely that marihuana 


has enough dangers so that it would not be a proper drug in the 
present form to substitute for alcohol. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Dr. Louria. 

Gen. Frank B. Clay, of the U.S. Army is our final witness. 

General Clay, in the interest of expediting, I would suggest that 
instead of spending the time to establish your qualifications you 
provide a brief resume for the record. Is that acceptable to you? 

General Clay. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Would you identify yourself for the record? 


General Clay. Mr. Chairman, I am Major General Frank B. Clay, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Drug and Alcohol Abuse; 
it is a pleasure to be here today. 

As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Drug and Alcohol 
Abuse, I am responsible for the prevention of drug abuse in the 
armed services through education programs, the identification of 
service members who abuse dangerous drugs and alcohol, and the 
short-term rehabilitation of those military drug abusers who will 
cooperate with their own treatment. 

While DOD continues to vigorously investigate and prosecute 
serious instances of criminal drug abuse, such as selling and traffick- 
ing, that area is outside my realm of responsibility. These subjects 
can best be discussed by representatives from the Office of the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Administration who are 
concerned with law enforcement and are scheduled to appear before 
you at a later date. 

As is the case with all drugs of abuse, the use of cannabis in any 
form continues to be regarded as a violation of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice. While the Department of Defense does not 
condone nor tolerate the use of any psychotropic or mind-expanding 
drug by its members, we are aware that many impressionable young 
people are caught up in drug abuse through peer pressures, ioneli- 
ness, boredom, and a high degree of exposure in certain foreign 
lands. These young people are certainly not criminals, but young 
Americans who may have been exposed to drug abuse on our high 
school and college campuses. 

We, therefore, have made a deliberate effort to use a firm but 
humanitarian approach to the identification, treatment, and re- 
habilitation of these young service members, and have resorted to 
disciplinary action only as a last resort in those instances not in- 
volving purely personal use or possession for personal use. 

Despite this revised approach during the last 3 years, we believe 
that the use of cannabis or its derivatives, or any other harmful 
drug is incompatible with our military missions. In some instances 
where we are unable to successfully treat a service member for drug 
abuse, we find it necessary to discharge that person from the 
service with a referral to the Veterans' Administration for the long- 
term treatment DOD is unable to provide. This is the Department 
of Defense Policy now in force with regard to cannabis and all 
other dangerous substances. This policy includes measures to pre- 


elude the service entry of habitual drug abusers by thorough screen- 
ing and interview at the Armed Forces Examining Entrance Sta- 
tions; to prevent drug abuse through a vigorous education program 
at all levels ; to identify drug abusers through our urinalysis screen- 
ing program and other methods ; to provide a voluntary self-referral 
to treatment program which guarantees exemption from punitive 
action for personal use and possession; and, finally, to treat and 
rehabilitate those drug abusers amenable to such effort to restore 
them as useful members of society without their records reflecting 
drue: abuse. 

The abuse of cannabis continues to be of a serious nature in the 
Armed Services: but since we are unable to chemically detect this 
drug in body fluids as we can morphine-based drugs, amphetamines, 
and barbiturates in our urinalysis screening program, we have no 
irood reliable data on the incidence of the abuse of this drug in the 
Armed Services. However, the U.S. Army in Europe, a location 
where the incidence of cannabis abuse is believed to be hierh, has 
conducted a continuing survey of its personnel — and the results are 
in exhibit 1. 


Average all ages February 1974 survey by age groups 

Januarv August ruarv 
Previous 1973 1973 1974 20 and 25 and 

Frequency of use surveys survey survey survey under 21-22 23-24 older 

Cannabis: ._....« „ , 1C ■> s 

Daily (in percent) 10-15 10 8 7 15 9 3 3 

At least once (in percent) 40 48 53 K- 78 62 47 II 

Usable survey responses. 16,700 1,374 1,463 1,759 - -- 

Source: Commandwide sample survey of cannabis use by U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) personnel. Data provided by 
headquarters, USAREUR. 

The February 1974 results show that 7 percent of those surveyed 
admitted to the daily use of cannabis and 46 percent of those sur- 
veyed stated that they had tried cannabis at least once. Even though 
this survey was a relatively small one with under 1,800 respondents, 
the true incidence rate of cannabis use of other than an experi- 
mental nature will probably be somewhere between these two rates. 
T have included as exhibit 2 some other survey data which may also 
be pertinent. 




Note: Survey question: Which term best describes your use of marihuana or hashish during the last 6 months7 



E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 sponses 

Never 48.2 55.6 55.8 65.2 85.0 94.8 96.6 96.4 69.4 

Rarely 14.9 13.2 12.1 11.3 6.1 2.1 1.7 .4 9.4 

Sometimes"" " 19-4 15.8 15.3 11.0 5.6 1.8 1.0 1.2 10.8 

55 ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5 15.4 ie.8 n.e 3.3 1.3 .7 2.0 10.4 

Note: Total sample population 13,070. 


You may also be interested to know that even though we are 
presently unable to detect cannabis in our drug screening program, 
ongoing research by a major pharmaceutical firm holds the promise 
of a radioimmunoassay test which will identify the heavy users of 
cannabis products, such as hashish or oil of hashish. AH of our 
drug screening laboratories are now being converted to the radio- 
immunoassay technology at the present time, and we will be ready to 
apply this test as a very fine deterrent if a successful assay is developed. 

The derivatives of cannabis also pose special problems for the 
Armed Forces which were not expressed in the Shafer Commission 
report of 1973. As you know, the basic active ingredient in plants 
of the genus cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. Most 
ground marihuana as presently used in this country contains from 
about 0.5 to 2.0 percent THC. Hashish, the dark brown resin col- 
lected from the tops of cannabis plants contains about 10 percent 
THC Hashish oil of cannabis, produced in a manner similar to the 
percolation of coffee, yields an even more potent dose which may be 
as high as 90 percent THC. Because of this extraordinary potency, 
one small drop of the oil placed on a regular cigarette and smoked 
can make an impressive "high". These two highly potent derivatives 
of cannabis certainly pose a much greater danger to service mem- 
bers than just the casual use of plain ground marihuana, regardless 
of the psychological or physiological effects which may exist with 
cannabis in its unmodified form. 

As to the physical impact of cannabis used in small amounts by 
the casual or recreational user, it may interfere to a degree with 
physical performance which depends upon visual function. In rela- 
tively high doses which are common to the daily user of hashish or 
oil of hashish, cannabis regularly produces hallucinogenic effects, 
abnormal sensations such as numbness, difficulty with thinking, con- 
centration or speaking, and altered perceptions. 

The psvchological impact upon service members is analogous to 
the overall effect on man in general as noted by other research. Can- 
nabis use may be associated with certain less severe psychological 
reactions, such as depressive and panic reactions, particularly in 
inexperienced users. There is evidence which suggests that sudden 
exposure to unusually high doses, as might be the case at the present 
time with hashish as used by the newly arrived soldier in Germany, 
might cause a toxic psychosis. Other research shows that it is also 
probable that cannabis is a factor in some cases of chronic psychosis 
and lack of motivation, which conditions could have an adverse 
effect on the field performance of service members. 

The essence of this report, therefore, is that while the DOD is mak- 
ing vigorous efforts to prevent the use of cannabis products by service 
members and to restore to effective and reliable functioning all 
individuals identified with problems attributable to cannabis and 
other drugs, we strongly support the continued control of all canna- 
bis and its derivatives as dangerous substances. The Department of 
Defense also strongly supports the continued vigorous investigation 
into the effects of cannabis use. The results of such research can 


have an important bearing on the future combat readiness of the 
armed services. 

As I mentioned before, matters involving security and law en- 
forcement as related to the use of cannabis are beyond my realm 
of responsibility in the Department of Defense. However, it is my 
personal judgment as a line officer of some experience that service 
members who habitually use cannabis are security risks in certain 

In anticipation of your questions regarding psychological and 
physiological effects of cannabis which may not be in my field of 
expertise, but medical in nature, I have brought an associate with 
me, Col. John J. Castellot, Sr., who is an Army medical officer and 
Chief of the Office of Alcohol and Drug Policy in the Office of the 
Surgeon General of the Army. 

If you have questions other than those involving law enforcement 
matters, we will be happy to answer them at this time. 

Senator Eastand. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Martin. General Clay, the subcommittee has received enough 
information from various sources to indicate that the cannabis epi- 
demic is creating some fairly serious security problems. We have 
heard, for example, of service members who have been involved in 
trading sensitive information for bags of pot or hashish. 

Do you personally know of such cases? I am not asking for spe- 
cific case histories because we will be going into the impact of can- 
nabis and security in the Armed Forces in more detail in executive 
session later; but have you heard of such cases? 

General Clay. I have heard of such cases second-hand. I have no 
direct knowledge of them. 

Mr. Martin. Have you heard, or seen any reports that the wide- 
spread distribution of pot and hashish played a significant role in 
the riots aboard an aircraft carrier just over a year ago? 

General Clay. No, I haven't. 

Mr. Martin. This is one of the matters that we will want to 
look into. 

General Clay. I would imagine this information would be avail- 
able from the Navy's drug and alcoholic abuse officers. 

Mr. Martin. Have the Armed Forces given thought to the point 
made by Dr. Powelson that it makes people more suggestible, more 
easily manipulated by agitators? 

General Clay. I think there has been thought given to it, but that 
certainly is not within the realm of my responsibility. 

Mr. Martin. Right. Isn't it true, General Clay, that the U.S. 
Armed Forces in Vietnam, just before the heroin epidemic broke, 
were afflicted with a major epidemic of cannabis abuse ? 

General Clay. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. Very strong cannabis, on the average 5 percent THC 
content. And it was bad enough so that in some units it seriously 
affected their fighting ability '? 


General Clay. We understand that to be true. 

Mr. Martin. Now, your presentation doesn't make it quite clear, 
General Clay, whether the Armed Forces have experienced the same 
qualitative escalation from marihuana to hashish as has been the 
case in the civilian sector. Do you find more hashish now than you 
found previously? 

General Clay. I think so, I think in Germany you will find that 
hashish is the principal drug of abuse. 

Mr. Martin. Your chart in exhibit 1 suggests that there has been 
a marked decline in cannabis use in the Armed Forces over the past 
several years. These figures, of course, are based on voluntary responses 
to questionnaires, are they not ? 

General Clay. Yes, they are. 

Mr. Martin. Now, this chart runs completely counter to the charts 
about the civilian sector that have been presented today by the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. On page 5 of your statement I notice 
that you indicate some personal skepticism over the fact that only 7 
percent of the servicemen admitted to daily use of cannabis; and 
that 46 percent stated that they tried cannabis at least once. 

Now, you point out, and I think correctly, that the incidence of 
use other than of an experimental nature probably would be some- 
where in between these figures ? 

General Clay. Right. 

Mr. Martin. What this adds up to, really, is that, in the absence 
of something like the urine test you can't get an accurate picture 
from a voluntary reporting system? 

General Clay. That's correct. 

Mr. Martin. If you consider the cannabis epidemic the biggest 
drug problem now confronting our Nation and our Armed Forces, 
do the Armed Forces have a specific educational program geared to 
the cannabis epidemic? 

General Clay. Not specifically to cannabis, but to drugs in gen- 
eral, we have a vigorous and widespread educational program in all 
of our service schools and throughout our military units. 

Mr. Martin. Is there any emphasis on cannabis ? 

General Clay. On all drugs. Cannabis is not singled out specifically. 

Mr. Martin. Would you know whether this program is kept right 
up to date with new scientific information on the adverse effects of 
cannabis ? 

General Clay. Yes, I think I can say that it is. If there is new 
information it is made available to the troops in the field; we do 
our best to keep current. 

Mr. Marten. I have one suggestion I would like to offer. You 
may have seen the report of recent research conducted by Dr. 
Kolodny of Masters & Johnson, demonstrating that male cannabis 
users suffer up to a 44 percent drop in male hormones; and the 
sperm count goes down to the point where heavy users become clin- 
ically sterile; and that very heavy users sometimes become im- 


potent. Wouldn't that information have a lot of impact on the 
average GI? 

General Clay. Yes, I am sure it would; and as a matter of fact 
Dr. Hardin Jones from California, Berkeley, discussed that with 
members of my office and our troops stationed in Germany. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Hardin Jones, by the way, will be one of our 
witnesses in the final session on May 20th. 

Those are the only questions I have. Mr. Sourwine, do you have 
any questions? 

Mr. Sourwine. No. 

Mr. Martin. That concludes our session, General Clay. Thank you 
very much for coming here, and I want to thank you for your 
testimony, which I feel is very useful. 

[Whereupon, at 1 :20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to 
the call of the Chair.] 


THUBSDAY, MAY 16, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, B.C. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in room 
1224, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Edward J. Gurney 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel and David Martin, 
senior analyst. 

Senator Gurney. The subcommittee will come to order. 
Today we shall be continuing our hearings on the marihuana- 
hashish epidemic and its impact on U.S. security. 

The hearing today will focus on the medical effects of cannabis. 
For the purpose of this hearing we have brought together a panel 
of internationally distinguished scientists who have done major 
research on cannabis. Among them are: Prof. Kobert Heath. 
Dr. Gabriel Nahas, Dr. Akira Morishima, Dr. Robert Kolodny, 
Prof. W. D. M. Paton, Dr. Morton Stenchever and Prof. Cecile 

The marihuana-hashish epidemic began as part of the Berkeley 
uprising of 1964. From there it spread out to the other campuses 
across the country. Then it spread down into our high schools — 
then our junior high schools — and now our grade schools. It has also 
spread upwards into the ranks of our middle class adults, and later- 
ally into the ranks of our blue collar workers. 

The charts which you see before you present the major essential 
facts about the scope of the cannabis epidemic. 

As you will see, over a 5-year period, from 1969 to 1973, inter- 
ceptions of marihuana by Federal agents rose tenfold to a total of 
782,000 pounds last year, while hashish seizures over the same pe- 
riod rose twenty-five-fold to a total of 53,300 pounds. 

These are staggering figures — all the more staggering when you 
consider that they do not take into account the many seizures ef- 
fected by local law enforcement agencies, and when you consider, 
too, that probably 8 to 10 times as much cannabis gets into the 
country as is seized or intercepted. 



What this means is that the United States last year probably 
consumed in excess of 8 million pounds of marihuana and 60,000 
or more pounds of hashish. 

From the scientists who will be testifying at today's hearings 
we shall be learning something of what this means in terms of the 
damage done to the bodies and minds of the American people. 

It is my hope that today's hearings will mark the beginning of a 
new period of public awareness. 

There has until now been a pervasive impression that the majority 
of our scientific community think marihuana isn't really too harm- 
ful. This feeling has been shared by teenagers and adults, by aca- 
demicians and newspapermen, by members of the middle class and 
members of the working class. This is the principal reason for the 
scope of the present epidemic. 

It is my hope that the hearings which we shall be conducting 
today, tomorrow, and Monday, will set the record straight on this 

To save time, I would ask the witnesses to rise and be sworn as a 

Mr. Martin. Would the witnesses please come to order and stand 
behind their name plates? 

Senator Gurnet. Will you all raise your right hands please. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Dr. Heath. I do. 

Dr. Nahas. I do. 

Dr. Morishima. I do. 

Dr. Kolodny. I do. 

Dr. Paton. I do. 

Dr. Stenchever. I do. 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. I do. 

Senator Gurnet. The first witness will be Dr. Robert Heath. Will 
you identify yourself for the record, please? 


Dr. Heath. My name is Dr. Eobert Galbraith Heath. I am a psy- 
chiatrist and neurologist and chairman of the Department of Psy- 
chiatry and Neurology at Tulane University School of Medicine. 

My training background is in neurology from the Neurological 
Institute of New York and in psychiatry from the Pennsylvania 
Hospital in Philadelphia, and in psychoanalysis from the Psychiatric 
Institute of Columbia University of New York. 

I trained in research in neurophysiology in the laboratories of the 
College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University of New 
York. I have been chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and 
Neurology at Tulane since January of 1949 and during that period, 
in addition to teaching and practicing psychiatry and neurology, 
have been involved in research attempting to correlate brain activity 
with behavioral phenomena and to investigate the basis of a variety 
of neurological and psychiatric disorders. 

Senator Gurnet. Just one or two other questions, Dr. Heath. You 


received your medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 
1937, is that correct ? 

Dr. Heath. In 1938. 

Senator Gurnet. 1938. 

Dr. Heath. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And you have been professor and chairman of 
the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane University 
School of Medicine in New Orleans since 1949 ? 

Dr. Heath. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. You have been a member of the International 
Board, Advisory Board, of the International Journal of Neuropsy- 
chiatry since 1959, is that correct? You are a member of the Ad Hoc 
Advisory Committee on Schizophrenia of the National Institute of 
Mental Health, is that correct? 

Dr. Heath. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Did you, in 1972, receive the Gold Medal Award 
of the Society of Biological Psychiatry for pioneer research in the 

Dr. Heath. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And are you the author of several books in the 
field of psychiatry and psychology? 

Dr. Heath. That is right. 

Senator Gurnet. And the author and co-author of approximately 
250 scientific papers? 

Dr. Heath. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Is there any other information that you feel the 
committee ought to have about your qualifications as an expert in this 

Dr. Heath. I can't think of any more, Mr. Gurney. 

Senator Gurnet. Will you proceed with your statement then, Dr. 

Dr. Heath. Senator Gurney and members of the committee, we 
have been involved in research, as I have indicated here, to determine 
if marihuana or the principal active ingredient, tetrahydrocanna- 
binol does, indeed, induce objective changes in brain activity and in 
brain structure ; whether or not marihuana smoking produces severe 
behavioral pathology or brain damage, or both. This is an issue that 
is still confused and unsettled today. Several clinical studies have 
been reported in the scientific literature which suggest that frequent 
and prolonged smoking of marihuana has deleterious effects on be- 
havior and the brain. Other authorities have insisted that mari- 
huana is an innocuous agent — that reports of its deleterious effects 
have failed to take into account the influence of several variables, 
such as the smoker's use of other drugs or his preexisting behavioral 
or brain abnormalities. 

The most notable and consistent clinical changes that have been 
reported in heavy marihuana smokers include apathy approaching 
indolence, lack of motivation often referred to as an emotional state, 
reduced interest in socializing, and attraction to _ intense sensory 
stimuli — they like to listen to loud music, floating lights, and so on. 
Less frequent are reports of overt psychotic behavior characterized 


by losing contact with reality, having hallucinations and so forth, 
and the induction of dyskinesias — abnormal muscle movements. 

In the Tulane laboratories, data gathered from a small number of 
uncontrollable epileptic patients who were undergoing brain surgery 
for their epilepsy, have revealed consistent alterations in function 
of specific deep brain sites. Techniques involved in the treatment of 
their epilepsy were rather unique. Electrodes were implanted into 
specific structures deep in the brain as well as over the surface. 
With these techniques we were able to obtain information on brain 
function that could not be obtained with the more conventional re- 
cording techniques. Some of the patients involved were chronic 
marihuana smokers. During the course of their treatment, we per- 
mitted them to smoke marihuana cigarettes while recordings were 
being made, with these special techniques, from otherwise unavail- 
able brain sites. The deep brain sites affected by the smoking were 
those where we had, over the years, made correlations between brain 
activity and alerting, awareness, and feelings of pleasure. 

One particular region of the brain that will be referred to fre- 
quently, is the septal region. Activity in this region has been con- 
sistently correlated with emotionality and feelings of pleasure. In 
schizophrenic patients, this region functions abnormally and this 
accounts for the lack of pleasure responsivity in the schizophrenic. 
Because it is connected with the sensory relay nuclei, the systems 
for perception of various sensations such as sound, light, touch, and 
movement, its abnormal functioning affects these other systems, and 
this can account for the disturbances of perception such as the hal- 
lucinations that psychotic patients experience. 

This region was affected when these patients smoked marihuana. 
That was a preliminary study and on the basis of it, we elected to 
do more intense study where we could control all of the variables 
that I previously mentioned. This degree of control is possible, of 
course, only in experiments with animals and could not be done with 
human patients. By using animals we were able to eliminate the 
variables — and I repeat them — the use of other drugs and a pre- 
disposition to mental or emotional illness. 

The dosage of marihuana smoked in these monkeys was rigidly 
controlled and precise methods were applied for studying brain 
activity in the animals; parameters for study which could not, of 
course, be used routinely for studying marihuana in humans since 
we implanted electrodes into the brain. The question for which we 
sought an answer was: "Does marihuana induce significant irre- 
versible effects on behavior and on brain function, or on the struc- 
ture of the brain?" This report is a preliminary survey of the data 
collected from our first long-term investigation, now nearing com- 
pletion, of the effects of marihuana in rhesus monkeys. 

Several cannabis preparations, all obtained from the Narcotic 
Addict Rehabilitation Branch of the National Institute of Mental 
Health, were used for smoking: marihuana with a high content of 
delta-9 THC, tetrahydrocannabinol; inactive marihuana, devoid of 
active cannabis compounds; and for intravenous injection, pure 
delta-9 THC, that thought to be the most important active ingredi- 
ent of marihuana. 


For smoking the monkeys with marihuana, a special apparatus, 
designed in our laboratories and pictured in figure 1, was employed. 
If you have any questions, Senator, or members of the committee, 
please interrupt me but it is probably better to explain as I go along. 
This is a device by means of which we could assure the delivery of 
an accurate dose. The marihuana to be smoked was assayed to quan- 
titate the active ingredients, then an exact amount was weighed out 
based on a dosage commensurate with the known dosage of mari- 
huana that people use, the same amount per unit of body weight. 
This was put into the pipe as shown here — figure 1 — and attached 


to a respirometer. The smoke was pulled into the respirometer by 
an electric motor and that smoke accumulated in the respirometer was 
then delivered into the monkey's nasopharynx through this tubing 
[photograph], at a rate commensurate with the rate of inhalation 
of human smoking. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, may I ask it be the order of the 
chairman that any photographs, charts, tables produced by the wit- 
ness may go into the record. 

Senator Gukney. Yes, it is so ordered. They will be made a part 
of the record. 

Dr. Heath. Delta-9 THC, the presumed important active compo- 
nent of marihuana, at a dose relative to the quantity of this in- 
gredient absorbed from the smoked marihuana, was given intra- 
venously through an indwelling intravenous cannula. I won't detail 
the methods of preparation. Since a high percentage of the active 
ingredient is lost in smoking, the intravenous dose of the delta-9 
THC was determined in accordance with the animal's response. The 
dose was approximately 18 percent of the amount of THC contained 
in the smoked marihuana. 

For control smoking with inactive marihuana, the amount of 
starting material was equated with the amount of marihuana and 
the total amount of marihuana was equated with the amount of the 
raw product in the active preparations. 

Ten rhesus monkeys were used in these experiments, some pre- 
pared with deep and surface brain electrodes and some which were 
unoperated to control for the variable of the effects of implanted 
electrodes. There are sockets that can be plugged into and the 
monkey has some 30 leads in various predetermined brain sites accu- 
rately implanted by a special device we use. 

Those monkeys that were operated were allowed to rest for at 
least 2 weeks after surgery to assure they were fully recovered from 
implanting the electrodes and until their recordings from all brain 
sites had returned to normal. 

The procedures used in this investigation enabled us to learn both 
the immediate — acute — and long-term — chronic — effects of mari- 
huana and delta-9 THC on brain function and behavior of monkeys. 
To determine the effects of long-term exposure, one group of mon- 
keys, which corresponded with human heavy smokers of hashish, a 
concentrated cannabis preparation, was smoked three times per day, 
5 days a week, for 6 months; another group which corresponded 
with moderate human hashish smokers was smoked two times a week 
for 6 months. The amount of delta-9 THC contained in the material 
employed for the moderate hashish smoking corresponded closely with 
the weekly dose levels that is consumed by the average marihuana 
smoker in the United States. 1 Two monkeys were given delta-9 THC 
once each day, 5 days a week over the 6-month period. 

I shall talk about the effects of marihuana and delta-9 first as a 
summary statement and I will then go into detail on each aspect of 
the experiments — the acute aspect and the chronic aspect. 

With exposure to the smoke of active marihuana, all monkeys de- 

pose levels correspond to those In clinical study by Tennant. F. S., and Groesbeck. 
C. J. Psychiatric effects of hashish. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 27.- 133-136. 1972. 


veloped acute [immediate] distinct alterations in behavior and those 
with depth electrodes showed significant alterations in brain record- 
ings. Similarly, with intravenous administration of delta-9 THC, 
the monkeys developed acute [immediate] changes in behavior and 
in brain-wave activity from some deep brain sites. With the passage 
of time, these monkeys ; that is, those exposed to the smoke of active 
marihuana and those given injections of delta-9 THC at regular 
intervals, developed chronic [persistent] changes in brain activity. 
These changes outlasted the immediate period of an hour or two 
after the conclusion of the smoking and were found to be present 
up to 5 days later. Those monkeys exposed to inactive marihuana, 
that is with the active ingredient, THC removed, showed neither 
acute nor chronic effects. 

I'll now describe the acute effects in detail. For this I refer to 
figure 2. The acute effects of marihuana were most pronounced in 
the monkeys during the early exposures to the smoke and became 
less evident with passage of time, that is, with repeated smoking. 
The immediate behavioral effect was reduced awareness. They were 
what is generally referred to as "stoned" and responded less to all 
forms of sensory stimuli, tending to stare blankly into space. You 
could stick them with pins or put your finger in their mouths with- 
out concern, and this is impossible with normal rhesus monkeys as 
they are rather hostile animals. 

Four of the six monkeys in this group were prepared with depth 
electrodes and distinct alterations were seen in recordings from 
specific deep sites of their brains — the most consistent changes oc- 
curing in the septal region, hippocampus and amygdala. If you look 
at figure 2, the sixth channel down is the hippocampus, labeled HIP. 


F3 -T3 
L T C» - R Cx 











574mfl/kg tf-THC 

1 -■ - • ' . ■ v . ' •' v-V 

mrnimip.jYfiiniiii "'Jff jSTJ'P 



A 9 -THC 


















%v yn 'Fr' w . * MM^* * f* < HI* 

POST OTmfl/hg IV rf-THC 

V^w,-.'. '.'■■ ■ ■■■' ■"■."'''. i '-'.'.v ■•**'•'.'.',.. xJnMUfI 

»«tfci>~ » ..w w»hn«rlMK»|K! , M^^ 

TrTTT:l r'TTimillllllllllllllllllll hTTTrTTTTITTlTT' 




L T Cx - R 

R Cx - R T 








3.74mg/«g rf-THC 

^\w*W"* 1 ***', 'N***** /X^"****"' S| M l»rt' * »- ' 





TT|iTrrTr|-TiT,T |||TimT^rnTrvM'M'Mi!'!":iiii' |PiruirTT;pr|>r.(iT 





PRE tf-THC OTmg/hg I.V. rf-THC 


L T Ci - fi Ci /" " ss ^--, v ■ * "^^./^v 

BOCl-BTCi ,.». 


R LAT AMY n***** -"'• ^z^^/- Y'-SV'^^^^^^V^"",* v w'i-- V-**'.W'v — ^^>Vv^^V»^*' 1 ^'-rf''^w^""'(~^vf™v H " VJ ~ 
R LAT GEN **y->.-Vi^ J V"'-^V'/ : ^ ^a__~vv- — iV—-. 1 - — "-W^ — .V — .' ^A^ft*_^w»- 



■-minium mum |im.-rrr nui'minui 'viiiiiniiiiiiii : |ppif||fiilHpjjT 


Key To Brain Wave Tests 

1. F3-T3 — Frontal Cortex to Temporal Cortex. 

2. F4-T4 — Frontal Cortex to Temporal Cortex. 

3. L T Cx-R O Cx— Left Temporal Cortex to Right Occipital Cortex. 

4. R O Cx-R T Cx — Right Occipital Cortex to Right Temporal Cortex. 

5. T C G — Time Code Generator (for computer). 

6. L HIP — Left Hippocampus. 

7. R LAT AMY— Right Lateral Amygdala. 

8. R LAT GEN— Right Lateral Geniculate. 

9. R A SEP— Right Anterior Septal. 

10. L P SEP — Left Posterior Septal. 

11. L MES RET — Left Mesencephalic Reticulum. 

12. R CUNEIF— Right Cuneiformis Nucleus. 

13. L RAPHE— Left Raphe Nucleus. 

14. L A HYP — Left Anterior Hypothalamus. 

15. R CBL FAS— Right Ceribellum Fastigius Nucleus. 

16. E K G — Electrocardiogram — Pulse. 

17. T C G — Time Code Generator (for computer). 

Senator Gurney. Will you identify, Doctor, which chart you are 
reading from now? 

Dr. Heath. This is figure 2. It is headed Smoked Marihuana Base- 
line on the left, Acute Effect on the right. 

Senator Gurney. I am sorry. 

Dr. Heath. If you will look at the amygdala and the hippocampus 
channels, you see the most dramatic changes. There are changes in 
other sites' too, but of a much lesser magnitude. Let me add that this 
is a very inadequate way of presenting this data but it is the only 
way I can under the circumstances. When we do a recording we 
record for at least 20 minutes and usually up to approximately an 
hour and then we look at the entire record. The record fluctuates — 
one time the change will be at one site and then as you go on they 
will shift to another site and so on, and the only way you can 
get a complete and comprehensive picture is to look at the entire 


Another way to get a comprehensive picture is to use videotape 
and if the committee wishes, I can provide them. We use a split- 
screen videotape showing the animal in one corner and the ongoing 
record on the rest of the screen. As you see the animal displaying the 
behavioral effect from marihuana smoke, you see the changes coming 
on in his brain recording. That is really the clearest way of present- 
ing it. But here, as I say, we have an inadequate way of presenting it 
as it is just a very brief sampling of an entire record. 

You can see under the acute effects of marihuana smoke changes 
in many sites. The amygdala, septal and hippocampus show the most 
pronounced changes and these are brain areas where activity has 
been correlated with various specific emotional states. The septal 
region is the site for pleasure — stimulating it activates pleasure 
feelings. When its activity is impaired, as it is in schizophrenia, 
you have a lack of pleasure and a reduction of awareness towards a 
sleepy, dreamy state. The changes we found with marihuana, in some 
ways, resemble the changes we recorded from schizophrenics. 

Senator Gurney. Which one are we talking about now — which 

Dr. Heath. This is the septal recording — labeled SEP — the 
eighth and ninth channels. As I say, this is a very brief sampling 
and with ongoing records there are changes, but of a lesser degree, 
in other sites. The changes are increases in amplitude, that is, the 
height, and in frequency, that is, the length of the wave. 

Senator Gurney. And for the record, I am asking, I understand 
but I am asking these questions so that we can set the record 
straight. The charts on the left are the normal lines before the 
marihuana was smoked and the lines on the right are the lines 
after the effects of the smoking marihuana, is that correct? 

Dr. Heath. That is correct. But I wish to point out that the sites 
most profoundly affected were those that had to do with emotionality. 
To repeat, the septal region, when it is acutely activated as with an 
electrical stimulus or with chemicals, induces pleasure. When you 
spontaneously feel strong pleasure, it produces a change in the re- 
cordings. Contrariwise, when activity in the septal region is im- 
paired, then there is a reduction in pleasure responsivity. 

With the acute smoking of marihuana you do get a pleasure 
response in humans and you find this reflected in their recordings. 
Iii contrast and most significant, however, is the finding that 
with chronic usage you begin to get recording changes indicating 
that the area is impaired in its function and that is associated with 
a reduction in pleasure responsivity, a lessening of motivation and 
a reduction in awareness. That, then, is the acute effect of smoking 

I will reiterate again that the sites that had to do with emotionality 
are directly connected with the relay nuclei in the brain for sensory 
perception. This is a possible physical explanation for the finding 
that when emotionality is grossly impaired (whether it be in a 
schizophrenic or as a result of an intoxicating drug) it affects the 
septal region, hippocampus and amygdala and is often accompanied 
by hallucinations and the other altered perceptions which these 
people experience. 


Mr. Sotjkwine. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question which I 
think will help the record? Doctor, would it be possible for you to 
tell us as you did with respect to the septal region what controls or 
reactions are specifically associated with the hippocampus and the 

Dr. Heath. That constitutes approximately 25 years of work and 
I was almost hoping you wouldn't get into that. The controls have 
been a lengthy background of experiments with hundreds of monkeys 
and with a total of some 60 or TO human subjects in whom we have 
implanted electrodes into these sites in a treatment program for 
otherwise unbeatable neurological diseases and some psychiatric 
disorders. We have techniques by which we implant electrodes into 
specific sites in humans for treatment, and they remain in place for 
periods up to a year or more. During this period of study for diag- 
nosis and treatment, we have been able, through a variety of tech- 
niques, to establish meaningful correlations between brain activity 
and behavior. For example, we obtained recordings when the pa- 
tient was in different mood states and thereby establish correlations 
between brain activity at specific sites and varying mood states. We 
stimulated a number of specific deep sites in the brain and we were 
then able to establish how that alters behavior. We have admin- 
istered drugs which modify behavior and further established the 
brain changes associated with those behavioral alterations. This, at 
best, only briefly summarizes the extensive background work that we 
have compiled over the years against which the present experiments 
are being conducted. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is it fair to say, sir, that the question I asked can- 
not be simply answered as in the case of the septal? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, it cannot be simply answered. It would take a 
lengthy dissertation and I don't believe we can get into that here. 
We do, however, have these documented on film. The only way to 
know what is going on in the mind is to have someone that can talk 
to you. As such, animal experiments are limited. I think that is a 
general statement pertinent to the information you are seeking. 
Shall I proceed? 

It is important to point out that no consistent or notable changes 
were seen in the scalp recordings of these four monkeys and none 
were seen in the conventional scalp EEG (electroencephalogram) 
recordings obtained from the two unoperated monkeys, and no con- 
sistent changes on scalp EEGs have been reported in human mari- 
huana smokers. I am pointing this out because usually the only 
technique that can be applied to human subjects is the conventional 
scalp EEG. 

These acute behavioral changes and recording changes subsided 
within 1 hour after exposure to the smoke. 

No visible changes in behavior or acute changes in brain record- 
ings were obtained in monkeys which were exposed to the smoke of 
inactive marihuana, suggesting that what we found was directly 
related to the active ingredients in the marihuana. Further evidence 
was the active ingredient, delta-9 THC administered intravenously 
once a day, 5 days a week, which consistently induced distinct and 


immediate changes in behavior and recordings in the two implanted 
monkeys. These effects were more pronounced than those obtained 
with the smoke of active marihuana. The two monkeys were more 
reduced in awareness and the recording changes, while occurring in 
the same brain structures as in the monkeys which were smoked, 
were more profound. The changes consisted of the development of 
frequent high-amplitude spiking, most pronounced and focal in the 
septal region. 

This is the brain site that is most profoundly affected in schizo- 
phrenia. Changes with delta-9 THC were more focal in the septal 
region and the magnitude of the change was somewhat greater than 
with the smoked marihuana. It appears, then, that this produces a 
more potent effect on this pleasure site; first turning it on and then 
with overdosage and continued usage, it seems to destroy the activ- 
ity of this site; the latter state being similar to that which we have 
in some psychotic behavior. These recordings resembled those we 
have previously obtained from the septal region of severely disturbed 
psychotic patients. 

The chronic effects, which I think may be most pertinent to these 
hearings, were the most impressive to us. Those monkeys prepared 
with depth electrodes which were exposed regularly to active mari- 
huana (heavily smoked — three times per day, 5 days a week; mod- 
erately smoked — two times a week), over a period of time began to 
show evidence of irreversible alterations in brain function about 3 
months after onset of the experiment. The precise brain regions 
affected were, again, the septal region, hippocampus and amygdala. 
These chronic effects were manifested by the recording changes 
which outlasted the acute effects of the smoke— that is, they per- 
sisted through the weekends when the monkeys were not exposed to 
smoke for 2 days. They were present on the Monday morning follow- 
ing and we have let them go as long as 5 days and these effects were 
still present. It appears that they are persistent, but to say that they 
were permanent, requires the passage of more time and further 
investigation. Our previous experience with similar situations would 
lead us to assume that this chronic smoking of marihuana has prob- 
ablv produced irreversible changes in brain function. 

It was interesting to us that these distinct and persistent brain 
alterations were temporarily corrected, being replaced by a different 
type of altered brain activity, when the animals were again ex- 
posed to the marihuana smoke. This phenomenon suggested that the 
marihuana had induced permanent changes of a tvpe that could be 
temporarily alleviated bv acute exposure, seemingly paralleling the 
well-known pattern of the drug-dependent person who gains tempo- 
rary relief from deprivation by taking more of the drujr. 

In two unoperated monkeys which were heavily smoked with ac- 
tive marihuana, only scalp recordings could be obtained; no changes 
were reflected in these conventional recordings. I again cite the im- 
potence of phvsiological techniques of only scalp recordings used 
routinely on human subjects. That is the reason, of course, that 
people report often that there are no changes in brain functions. 


They use a scalp EEG, a technique which is unable to pick up these 

Chronic exposure to inactive marihuana smoke did not produce 
notable behavioral or recording alterations in the monkeys. 

Persistent recording changes from specific deep brain sites, the 
septal region, hippocampus and amygdala, appeared in the two 
monkeys to which delta-9 THC was intravenously administered 5 
days a week in 2 to 3 months after the study began. As with the 
monkeys exposed to marihuana smoke, these changes persisted over the 
weekends. You will note in figure 5 that there is a high amplitude 
spiking in the sixth channel indicating a change in the hippocampal 

Also, in the septal leads (9th and 10th channels), you will find 
high amplitude sharp spiking and this has a great deal of signifi- 
cance. This is what we refer to as "epileptiform activity" and indi- 
cates that there is damage to that site or the cells in the vicinity of 
that recording electrode. 

With regard to physical complications in this experiment, two 
monkeys out of the 10 died during the course of these studies. Their 
recording and behavioral data are included in the effects cited 
herein. One monkey died 3!/2 months after onset of the experiment 
and the other animal died after 5y 2 months after the onset. One had 
implanted electrodes and the other was unoperated. Both were in the 
heavily smoked active marihuana group (chronic exposure) and both 
died of respiratory complications. 

The brains of these two animals have been studied histopathologi- 
cally and the preliminary report indicates minimal structural altera- 
tion of cells in the septal region of the brain. 

Our protocol requires us to continue to study the behavioral and 
recording changes in the surviving monkeys for 1 month beyond the 
drug exposure period of 6 months. At that point, the monkeys will 
be sacrificed and their brains will be carefully perused and prepared 
for study by electron and light microscopy to yield more finite data 
about structural changes that may have been induced in association 
with the consistent physiological alterations that I have described. 

Regarding behavioral effects, the behavioral data concerned with 
long-term effects of marihuana smoking and intravenous delta-9 
THC have not been sufficiently analyzed to report them at this time. 
There are, however, behavioral changes which have been documented 
which are not solely due to the acute effects of the drug. 

In summary of this experiment I am reporting to you that the 
smoke of active marihuana, that is, with a high content of delta-9 
THC. induced in the rhesus monkeys, consistent and distinct changes 
in recordings from specific deep brain sites in association with be- 
havioral alterations. 

(2) When the monkeys were regularly exposed to these drugs, 
at both moderate and heavy dose levels, persistent — perhaps irre- 
versible — alterations developed in brain function at specific deep 
sites where recording activity has been correlated with emotional 
responsivity, alerting and sensory perception. 

33-371 O - 74 - 6 


(3) Heavy smoking of active marihuana induced respiratory com- 
plications which proved lethal to two monkeys after Sy 2 to 5y 2 

(4) Preliminary histopathological data suggest that structural 
alteration of cells at focal brain sites may be associated with the 
persisting physiological changes. 

Incidentally, the sites in the brain where we have gotten these most 
pronounced and persistent changes are in areas which show on pneu- 
moencephalograms. Damage at these sites would correspond with 
the findings of Campbell, et al., published in Lancet in 1972. Their 
studies were with human subjects and adolescents who were smoking 
marihuana for a very long period of time who showed some behav- 
ioral symptoms and had enlarged lateral ventricles. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Dr. Heath. Members of the panel, 
I have a vote in the Senate now and I am going to have to recess 
the subcommittee briefly while I go and vote. The subcommittee is 
recessed at the call of the Chair. 

T Short recess.] 

Senator Gurnet. The subcommittee will come to order. First of 
all, I want to apologize to the panel here. We have a very contro- 
versial bill on the Senate floor, the issue known as busing, so I am 
going to be back and forth quite a bit in the morning. 

Dr. Heath, I am going to ask a few general questions and then 
the counsel will ask more questions about the more technical aspects 
of your testimony. First of all, how long have you been doing re- 
search on marihuana? 

Dr. Heath. About 4 years. 

Senator Gurnet. Is it your conclusion, Dr. Heath, from the re- 
search you have done in these 4 years that marihuana is a dangerous 

Dr. Heath. When I first began to work with marihuana I was 
much in keeping with the ideas that were prevalent in the scientific 
arena at that time that marihuana seemed to be a relatively innocu- 
ous agent. It produced relaxation and no one had established that it 
produced any significant damage, nor that it was strictly addictive. 
But as I have gone on with the experiments observing the effects in 
humans, both clinically and as part of the research program, I 
began to feel that this is a very harmful drug. This drusr seems to 
produce real and significant damage, and my data, I believe, sub- 
stantiates the fact that this is a drug which has strongly deleterious 
effects with probable destructive effects on the brain in heavy users. 

I think most of my colleagues, at least the ones that I have dailv 
contact with in the medical school and particularly those who are 
in charge of the psychiatric or mental health section of the student 
health clinic at Tulane, have become more and more concerned with 
the marihuana problem, as students using it are showing distinct, 
often severe and lasting effects. 

So. in summary, as time has gone on, and I have become per- 
sonally more acquainted with and interested in the effects of mari- 
huana, both clinically and experimentally, I have come to feel in- 
creasingly that this is a dangerous drug. 


Senator Gurney. You mentioned that you were concerned about 
the use of marihuana among the students at Tulane University. I, 
of course, don't intend to single out Tulane — it is a typical American 
university like the others everywhere — but would you say that mari- 
huana use on your campus is fairly widespread among the students? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, we have done surveys from time to time, and T 
think they are fairly accurate. In the surveys students had no reason 
not to answer the questions candidly and it is in quite wide usage. I'm 
sure this is true in other campuses as well. 

Senator Gurney. What percentage of usage among the students 
did your surveys show ? 

Dr. Heath. Well, surveys have varied, depending what your cri- 
teria are. In other words, if you include the occasional experimental 
user, the percentage is much higher than if you only consider 
those that use it very frequently. There are gradations — those who 
smoke daily, those who use it several times a week, and those who 
smoke on the weekends to those who have experimented only once 
or twice. I would say, considering only those who have used it to a 
significant extent, that the statistics range as high as 30 to 40 percent. 

Senator Gurney. What do you call a fairly consistent usage — how 

Dr. Heath. Two or three times a week. 

Senator Gurney. Now this is a marihuana cigarette, I presume? 

Dr. Heath. Correct. I would consider two to three marihuana 
cigarettes per week and doing it on a regular basis to be significant. 

Senator Gurney. And it is your opinion from the result of your 
research that the persistent use of marihuana two or three times a 
week regularly does produce permanent brain damage? 

Dr. Heath. It would seem unlikely that marihuana of low po- 
tency smoke of two or three times a week would produce brain 
damage. We were using considerably higher dosage in our experi- 
ments. Moderate smokers — moderate being based on hashish con- 
sumption — corresponds to the upper levels of social consumption 
that would amount to smoking considerably more than two or three 
marihuana cigarettes of the potency level prevalent on our campus. 
The dose range would be about the level that would be consumed if 
a person were smoking three average marihuana cigarettes per day. 
We are talking about dosage on a per kilogram level between our 
monkeys and our humans — not total dosage, of course. In the future, 
if the funds are provided, we will smoke monkeys at a lower dose 
level commensurate with the amount of active ingredient that is 
consumed by an individual smoking three to five cigarettes per week. 
This would mean repeating the entire study at this dose level and 
would involve considerable additional expense — but until we do this 
I will not be able to answer with precision the question you raised. 

Senator Gurney. Would you care to offer an opinion about the 
persistent use of marihuana by your students, if that would produce 
brain damage? 

Dr. Heath. We have numerous instances in which the students 
using marihuana have gotten into difficulty one way or another. But 
there are, of course, many variables in the life of students and this 


is what makes clinical data in some instances questionable. But as 
you see a number of patients where smoking marihuana is in the 
foreground of the clinical picture, you do begin to feel that this is 
an agent which has harmful effects, and one which reduces the effec- 
tive capability of many students in both their personal life relation- 
ships and their academic performances. Speaking as a clinician, 
without being able to back it with precise hard data such as we have 
in animals, it seems probable that the continued use of marihuana is 
reducing the potential ceiling level of functioning of a number of 
these students, both emotionally and academically. 

Senator Gurney. You mentioned about 4 years ago when you be- 
gan this study you felt that marihuana was, as I recall, not a harm- 
ful drug, a rather innocuous drug. But you have changed your 
opinion on that? 

Is it also true that this is a prevailing opinion among a wide- 
spread portion of our population today — that marihuana is an in- 
nocuous and is not a harmful drug? 

Dr. Heath. Yes. I see the point you are making and I think it 
accurately reflects the prevailing attitude amongst younger members 
of our society, both high school and college students. If you speak 
with them they quote certain authorities and opinions from members 
of their own group to the effect that this drug is innocuous. 

Senator Gurney. Another question that I think is important. 
There is a prevailing opinion, I think, certainly among the users — 
the young people and the adults too, so far as that is concerned — 
that marihuana can be equated to alcohol as a drug; that marihuana 
really isn't any more harmful than alcohol. "Would you care to ex- 
press your opinion on that? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, I think I can express that even more firmly be- 
cause it can be backed with hard data from our animal studies. If 
I may, I would just like to state that the probable reason so many 
believe that marihuana is innocuous is because there really has not 
been any significant amount of hard data collected until recently 
to determine whether it does or does not produce damaging effects 
on the human, particularly on the brain. 

I think our data are some of the first real objective data that 
have shown that marihuana does produce persistent effects, at least 
in brain function. Until this sort of data had been collected people 
were going on hearsay. I think it is important to separate what is 
soft or impressionistic opinion from factual data, and the factual 
data hasn't all come in yet. The investigators you have gathered 
here today have all been in the process of collecting some hard data. 

Senator Gurney. Realizing then that the data are not complete, 
because we do want to be careful in making conclusions and state- 
ments, but from your own studies, I take it, your opinion is that 
marihuana is a far more dangerous drug than alcohol ? 

Dr. Heath. I believe that is correct. We have used alcohol as a 
control in our studies, both with human patients and with the ani- 
mals. I am perplexed as to why this analogy was made between 
marihuana and alcohol since we have gathered more information, 


except that on a social, clinical basis both produce relaxation and a 
feeling of euphoria. But when you begin to study brain activity in 
relationship to these compounds they are drastically different. Alco- 
hol does not produce these profound specific recording changes that 
I have been showing you as a result of marihuana and the active 
ingredient delta-9 THC. It produces some diffuse, rather minor 
alterations, that you would expect if you spontaneously were some- 
what more relaxed. 

Alcohol does not get in there and directly and profoundly affect 
brain function as the cannabis preparations do. They have a strik- 
ingly different physiological effect on the brain. Of course, alcohol 
does affect the liver and it has been shown objectively with many 
recent experiments that it ultimately can affect the brain, but you can 
use alcohol for a long period of time without producing any sort 
of persistent damage. People might drink rather heavily for 25 or 
30 years and never get into serious trouble so far as alterations in 
their brain is concerned. But with marihuana, as the facts are be- 
ginning to accumulate, it seems as though you have to use it only 
for a relatively short time in moderate to heavy use before persistent 
behavioral effects along with other evidence of brain damage begin 
to develop. As I have said, these animal data are hard data. As data 
accumulates they are beginning to confirm what many of us have 
suspected from clinical experience with marihuana users; namely, 
that this produces distinctive and irreversible changes in the brain. 

Senator Gurnet. One final question, Dr. Heath. Do you think that 
the use of marihuana should be legalized ? 

Dr. Heath. You know, I think that is a little bit out of my ball 
park and into yours. 

Senator Gurnet. All right. 

Dr. Heath. I think it is my job to collect information for you to 
use in making that decision. 

Senator Gurnet. I guess so. 

Dr. Heath. And I would rather avoid commenting on it. 

Senator Gurnet. You have a good point. Counsel will have ques- 
tions now to ask you — Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin. I have a suggestion to make, Mr. Chairman. So that 
the record will be more comprehensible for the lay reader, I would 
like to suggest that Dr. Heath provide us, if it isn't too much trouble, 
with a diagram showing the location of the segments of the brain 
about which he has been talking today, and a brief description of 
the major functions controlled by these segments. Would that be 
possible. Dr. Heath? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, that could be produced. 

Senator Gurnet. The diagram will be included as a part of the 


[The diagram referred to follows :] 



Fig. 1. Scliema of the limbic system. OB — olfactory bulb; LOT — lateral olfactory striae; INS— insula; I'll— 
uncinate bundle; PIJ — diagonal band of broca; AM Y(I — amygdala; SCH — subcallosal radiations; HYP -liyuo- 
tlialamus; AT — anterior thalamus; MH — mammillary body; MTT — maiumillothalamic trace (Vicq D'Azyr's 
Tract); ATlt — anterior thalamic radiations; ST — stria terminalis; UAH -halienula; MKH medial forebrain 
bundle; SM — stria medullaris; HPT — hal>enulointerpe<luncular tract (fasciculus retroflexus of Meynert); IP — 
interpeduncular nucleus; LMA — limbic midbrain area of nauta; (i -nucleus of (iuddeu; ('(J — central gray; (*C— 
corpus callosum. 

Mr. Martin. The EEG charts that you have shown us, Dr. Heath — 
would it be accurate to describe them as a quantitative reading of 
aberration from the normal in the brains of monkeys and humans 
who have been exposed to marihuana? Does a more violent aberra- 
tion of the brain wave pattern from the normal pattern mean that 
the brain has been more severely affected? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, in general, that is true. In regard to your major 
question about quantitating, yes, they can to some extent be quanti- 
tated and we have been quantitating those. 

If you will note on those records there are two channels labeled the 
TCG, time code generator. We can put this physiological data on. 
tape, and then we can put it into the computer for a quantitative 
analysis of the changes that have occurred in terms of the amplitude 


changes and the frequency changes, which are the basic important 
constituents of an EEG record. 

Mr. Martin. You spoke about the parallel work you conducted 
with alcohol in monkeys and humans, Dr. Heath. Would it be pos- 
sible to provide us for the record with a set of parallel EEG charts 
for alcohol, with a commentary on the difference between the mari- 
huana and alcohol ? 

Dr. Heath. Yes. As a matter of fact I have published articles on 
that comparison. One was on humans, in the Archives of General 
Psychiatry, I believe, in the early summer of 1972. And the other 
was on monkeys where alcohol was used as a control substance, and 
that was published in the Journal of Neuropharmacology in 1973 — 
I will send you reprints of both if that is satisfactory. 

Senator Gurnet. That is, and these will be included in the record 
as well. 

[The documents referred to may be found in the appendix, pp. 349, 

Mr. Martin. Do the aberrations from the normal appear to be 
more marked in any one segment of the brain than in other segments, 
and, if this is the case, what would you say this implies? 

Dr. Heath. Yes. The sites that are most profoundly affected are 
the septal region, hippocampus, and amygdala and this is where the 
lasting effects have been occurring. 

The septal is part of the deep rostral forebrain, the front part of 
the brain in depth and, as I indicated, this is the site where we have 
been able to localize pleasure responsiveness. This is the center of 
our physiological system for pleasure. Whenever you spontaneously 
feel pleasure this side fires off, and if you stimulate it, intense feel- 
ings of pleasure are induced. When you have diseases such asschizo- 
phrenia where pleasure is impaired, this region is functioning ab- 
normally. The fact that this drug, marihuana, initially turns it on 
and activates it like an electrical stimulus, is the reason that people 
use the drug. That is the fundamental attraction of addictive drugs — 
they make you feel good. 

Ultimately, of course, since they are squeezing out the essential 
chemical constituents of this physiological system, it becomes ex- 
hausted; you then need to take increasing amounts of the drug, 
until the system is completely exhausted and the drug no longer 
induces an' effect. The drugs' aren't putting in anything. They're 
just squeezing out what you have there already. Ultimately, the 
cells become depleted and can't respond. 

Mr. Martin. You mentioned schizophrenia. Is it accurate — I 
have heard this, I am not sure that it is so — that you have a 
similarity between the brain wave patterns of marihuana smokers and 
schizophrenics ? 

Dr. Heath. In some of them that is correct. In particular, in these 
animals that have been chronically exposed, we are beginning to see 
changes of the sort we see in the psychotic schizophrenic patient. 
This septal region recording abnormality is seen with any form of 
psvchotic behavior — schizophrenia or other brain pathologies caus- 
ing psychosis. For example, if a brain tumor grows there and knocks 
out these cells you get psychotic too. 


Mr. Martin. Is the motivational factor — is this controlled by the 
hippocampus or what segment? 

Dr. Heath. The septal region, hippocampus and amygdala, which 
are integral parts and richly interconnected, are parts of this moti- 
vational system. But the septal region is much more tied in with 
pleasure and thus with motivation. We do things because we get a 
reward. Thus, motivation is tied in with pleasure. 

Mr. Martin. The aberration from the normal which you found in 
the segments of the brain associated with motivation — could these 
aberrations have anything to do with the so-called amotivational 
syndrome ? 

Dr. Heath. Yes, I think this is the correlation. This is the pleas- 
ure system and if its function becomes impaired then you lose your 
motivation. There is a physiological basis for motivation. 

Mr. Martin. One final question. One of our witnesses last Thurs- 
day was Dr. Harvey Powelson of California, Dr. Powelson served 
as director of the Psychiatric Division of the Student Health Service 
at Berkeley from 1964 to 1972, and he saw the beginnings of the 
epidemic, and he saw it burgeon, and then he saw it take over the 
campus. And he changed his mind as a result of this exposure, as 
a result of the exposure to hundreds — literally hundreds — of students 
who had gone on marihuana and hashish and had suffered irreparable 
damage in his opinion, as a result of this. He told us that he was 
convinced of the existence of irreversible brain damage and that it 
was produced in a relatively short time, as you suggest is a possibilitv. 

He related the history of a brilliant student of mathematics who 
had abandoned his studies when he embarked on a heavy cannabis 
binge and then about 2 years later he decided to pull himself to- 
gether and come back. So he laid off for a long time, went back to 
school, became functional — but he just couldn't do the complex math- 
ematical calculations he was able to do before, even a year later. 
Does this correspond to anything in your experience? 

Dr. Heath. It very closely parallels my own experience both clin- 
ically and in my research. I haven't seen the numbers of patients 
who are marihuana smokers that Dr. Powelson has. He was in a 
very unusual position. We have a much smaller student body and I 
have seen some of the students personally. But our experience paral- 
lels his. You describe another very interesting phenomenon which I 
would like to comment on, and that is that when a person stops 
using the drug, they do show some improvement. They do not, how- 
ever, get back to their baseline level of functioning. This is true with 
any insult to the nervous system; whether it be a stroke, a trauma 
or a hit on the head, the initial effects are much greater that the 
long-term effects. When you get an insult to the nervous system, even 
though the immediate effects are very profound, there is a tendency 
for it to clear up but only partially. There is always some permanent 
residual effects which hangs on and I think this is what Dr. Powelson 
described. Much of the immediate toxic effects clear up when you 
stop smoking but the consequences of that toxin having been there 
for a long time may permanently damage some cells which then 
can't recover. 


Mr. Martin. That concludes the questions that I have to ask, Mr. 

Senator Gurnet. Do you have any questions, Mr. Sourwine ? 

Mr. Sourwine. I have a few Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. 
Sir, you have in a number of ways appeared to imply that the re- 
sults received or discovered in experiments with monkeys are reli- 
able criteria or at least reliable indicia with respect to what can be 
expected under similar or identical circumstances in the case of a 
man. Is this true ? 

Dr. Heath. That is correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. Oh, in part of your discussion you referred to 
either 8 or 18 percent of delta-9 THC contained in smoked mari- 
huana. Was that 18 or 9 percent? 

Dr. Heath. When we smoked the monkeys with marihuana we 
had an assay of the percentage of THC in that preparation, and 
then, on a per weight basis, weighed out the amount of marihuana 
for that particular monkey to smoke. That was based on what heavy 
or moderate hashish users would smoke. When we were trying to 
relate the intravenous delta-9 THC to the ingestion of active ingredi- 
ents through the marihuana smoked, we at first thought we would give 
the total amount intravenously that the monkey was getting by 
smoking it. But when we did that we nearly killed the monkey. It 
has been known that smoking is not the most efficient way for get- 
ting the active ingredient. We adjusted the dosage so that we would 
get a good effect on the monkey without risking its life, and came 
out with a total dose of 18 percent. 

In other words, when we have the delta-9 THC, we could only 
give 18 percent of the delta-9 THC contained in the marihuana they 

Mr. Sourwine. What I was trying to get at is this question. Does 
that mean, as it appears to, that in smoking a monkey can get and 
does get roughly five times as much of the delta-9 THC as it would 
take to kill him if he got all that at once? In other words, is a 
monkey getting a lethal dose in the smoking? 

Dr. Heath. There are a number of ways of interpreting that fact 
that I gave you. One is that taking it into the lungs is not the most 
efficient way of getting the active materials into the bloodstream. A 
lot of it is lost in smoking — that is the most important factor. 

Mr. Sourwine. Thank you, sir. You told us that for controlled 
smoking with inactive marihuana, the amount of starting material 
was equated with the amount of marihuana in the active prepara- 
tions. Would you tell us for the record what was this equation? 

Dr. Heath. Right. Here is the way that is done, backing up again. 
With the marihuana we knew how much delta-9 THC was in it, and 
we knew the dose per kilogram of weight we were going to give, so 
knowing the strength of the marihuana we would then weigh out 
the total amount of the crude weed which contained the active mate- 
rial and thus gave the dose that we wanted. 

In our control, where we were using inactive marihuana we would 
just weigh out the same amount of material that was calculated for 
the monkeys smoking active marihuana. 


Mr. Sotjrwine. But that was deactivated? 

Dr. Heath. Deactivated. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. It was marihuana with its teeth pulled? 

Dr. Heath. That is correct — exactly. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Now, Professor, I believe I have just one more 
question. Did your protocol permit you to draw conclusions consti- 
tuting or underlying comparisons between the deleterious effects of 
marihuana and the deleterious effects of just the smoke without the 
tetrahydrocannabinol ? 

Dr. Heath. I am sorry, sir. I didn't follow your question. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. I am asking whether under your protocol for these 
experiments you were in a position to draw any conclusions, any 
comparisons, between the damage or the results of the effects of the 
marihuana smoking as compared with similar or somewhat similar 
effects, if any, involved in the mere smoking of tobacco or detox- 

Dr. Heath. Eight. We didn't get 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Detoxified marihuana. 

Dr. Heath. We got neither immediate nor lasting effects with the 
detoxified marihuana. It looks like the effects on the brain are due 
to the delta-9 THC, possibly along with other specific ingredients. 

We have used tobacco as a control in other studies we reported, 
and it does not induce these changes either. So the conclusion would 
be that neither smoke, per se, tobacco, nor inactive marihuana in- 
duces the changes with which we are concerned. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. The last part of the question. You indicated in 
your statement that there were monkey deaths due to respiratory 
problems, apparently caused by the smoking of the monkeys. Do vou 
have any indication whether these problems were caused merely by 
the products of smoking, aside from the delta-9 THC ? 

Dr. Heath. Yes. I think I will have to speculate but there is an 
awful lot of "junk" in marihuana that is bound to be extremely 
harsh and irritating. Marihuana is much more harsh and irritating 
than tobacco and produces considerable irritation in the respiratory 
tract of these animals. We feel this was the reason the two animals 
developed pneumonia and subsequently died. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. I have no further questions. 

Senator Gtjrney. Thank you, Dr. Heath. Let me thank you for 
your most important and constructive testimony from your research. 
The subcommittee is grateful to you for being here this morning. 
You have made a great contribution in your study in trying to find 
out about the effects of marihuana. 

Our next witness is Professor Paton. 

Would you identify yourself for the record, Professor? 


Dr. Paton. I am professor of pharmacology in the University of 
Oxford. I originally trained in physiology in Oxford, qualified in 
1942 in medicine, did a residency, and then pathology for a year, and 


then during the war entered the service of the Medical Research 
Council to work on diving and submarine problems. My own interest 
in cannabis was aroused by a conference on adolescent drug de- 
pendence in 1966, from which it seemed that in modern terms the 
sort of pharmacological work that was needed, was not really being 
initiated, and I began my work in 1969. 

Senator Gurnet. Just one or two other questions, Professor, to 
pin down the record. You were trained as a physiologist in Oxford, 
where you took your first degree in 1938? 

Dr. Paton. I took my degree in 1938 at Oxford. 

Senator Gurnet. And then after being a clinical student at Uni- 
versity Hospital London, your degrees of bachelor of medicine and 
bachelor or surgery from Oxford were in 1942? 

Dr. Paton. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And you were a house physician at the Univer- 
sity College Hospital, London, and also a pathologist? 

Dr. Paton. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And how long was that? 

Dr. Paton. The residency was 6 months. Then I did a year in 
pathology at a sanatorium. 

Senator Gurnet. You are the author, with J. P. Payne, of "Phar- 
macological Principles and Practice", which is one of the standard 
textbooks on the subject in the English-speaking world? 

Dr. Paton. It was, I would not claim it is now, when one has 
failed to revise it. It is now about 6 years old. 

Senator Gurnet. You are chairman of the Editorial Board of the 
British Pharmacological Society; 

Dr. Paton. Yes, that is right. 

Senator Gurnet. And are you the chairman of the Committee on 
Drug Dependence of the British Medical Research Council? 

Dr. Paton. I am. 

Senator Gurnet. Could you just briefly tell us what the British 
Medical Research Council is? 

Dr. Paton. Our Medical Research Council is roughly equivalent 
to your National Institutes of Health. 

Senator Gurnet. I see. 

Dr. Paton. I served on the Council for 4 years. I have chaired a 
number of its committees and I am now chairman of this particular 

Senator Gurnet. How long have you been involved in the study 
of cannabis? 

Dr. Paton. I started thinking and reading about it back about 
1966. My own work on it, directlv experimenting with it, started in 

Senator Gurnet. Would you proceed with your statement ? 

Dr. Paton. Some of mv earlier work has been relevant : on anes- 
thetics (dating back to 1944 in connection with narcosis in diving 
and submarine escape), and on opiates (from 1949). The statement 
that follows rests partly on this work, partly on my own informal 
contacts with drug users, and partly on a review of the recent re- 
search on the effects in animals and man (written together with Dr. 


K. G. Pertwee and Dr. Elisabeth Tylden) which forms three chap- 
ters in "Marihuana" ed. R. Mechoulam, Academic Press, recently 
published. Of this work (400-500 papers), usually only a small 
fraction is referred to in official reports and other writings. My 
bibliography now reaches over 700 papers which have material 
that is important in them. I will try to bring out what appear to me 
the salient points of all this work, interpreted from my pharma- 
cological experience, and taking for the most part the point of view 
of preventive medicine. 

It is sometimes said that cigarettes and alcohol are as bad as, or 
worse than cannabis, yet they are "legal" — why should not can- 
nabis be too? I should like to say that I will compare these later 
from the pharmacological point of view and from my own attitude 
in this field, that of preventive medicine. But, before doing this, 
I think one must review the actions of the cannabis, particularly 
because very little publicity indeed has hitherto been given to many 
of these actions. 

Senator Gurnet. Professor Paton, I wonder if you could explain 
to the subcommittee and to me especially, because I really do not 
know, what is the difference between the term cannabis and mari- 
huana and hashish ? 

Dr. Paton. Cannabis is a botanical term, the name of a plant. 
There has been a considerable variety of terms. This is a botanical 
term. Marihuana is the term usually given to the plant without 
any special treatment, dried for use. Hashish is a name where the 
resin, chiefly in the flowering heads, is in some way or other par- 
tially purified. You can do this in various ways, if you simply 
press a whole lot of the flowering tops of plants together the resin 
aggregates; and according to how far you push this you get a 
richer and richer preparation. I think it is worth stressing that the 
dividing line, this is my view, between marihuana and hashish 
is not a very good one. You can get hashishes which have decayed 
and they may have quite a loss of THC content; and you can get 
marihuana such as some people have grown in England from seeds, 
and just the leaves contain a remarkable amount of THC. 

I shall use the term cannabis rather than marihuana, since the 
use of the latter word may suggest a sharper distinction from hash- 
ish than in fact exists (both are mixtures of cannabis resin with 
other material from the plant), and perhaps also begs the question 
whether or not it would be possible to legislate differently for them. 
The first point to stress is that cannabis is a complex mixture of 
chemicals; I am not sure of the latest score, but there are certainly 
50 identifiable substances in it. At least six of these are known to 
have a biological action: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), propyl-THC, 
cannabidiol, cannabinol, and a group of water soluble materials 
giving alkaloidal reactions. This affects, inter alia, the suggestion 
that one might permit a preparation containing up to 1 or 2 per- 
cent THC to be marketed : this would only be feasible if THC were 
the only active principle. It also means that pharmacological or 
other studies which are limited to THC have only a restricted rele- 
vance to problems of human usage of cannabis. 



Second, and possibly the most important single fact about can- 
nabis, apart from the* fact of its psychic action, is that THC, the 
main psychically active principle, is intensely soluble in fat, as we 
pointed out in 1970. It has an octanol/water partition coefficient of 
about 6,000 to one, over 10,000 times that of alcohol. Correspond- 
ing to this is a low solubility in water. Its fat solubility is greater 
than that of industrial solvents, and is exceeded only by substances 
like DDT. The other cannabinoids share these properties. This solu- 
bility gives it an affinity for, and ability to traverse, the fatty ma- 
terial in cell-membranes. 

From this physical property follows: (a) the activity of cannabis 
by all routes of administration; (b) its cumulative effect, and the 
persistence of effect when drug is withdrawn it tends to persist 
in the body because it is sitting in the fatty areas which cannot be 
washed out by the watery system of the body. (We take water in 
at one end and lose it at the other— rinsing the body all the time — 
to put it colloquially.) ; (c) its passage into all parts of the body, 
including brain, adrenal gland, ovary, testis, and foetus; (d) the 
diffuseness of its effects because it is able to reach every cell in the 
body; (e) the overlap in its effects with those of one important 
group of fat-soluble materials, the general anesthetics such as 

Perhaps I should say a special word about the brain, where per- 
haps the most important fatty material in our bodies is located, 
though in much smaller percentage than (say) in adipose tissue. 
Here, too, cumulation of THC and its first two metabolites has been 


(a) Fat affinity and cumulation in the body in themselves are not 
necessarily harmful, even if cumulation is undesirable in principle. 
The fundamental test is a biological one, whether toxicity is cumula- 
tive. This has been found to be the case; for a mouse, it requires 
one-tenth as much cannabis to kill if given in repeated daily doses 
as if given in a single dose. Similar cumulative toxicity has been 
found for THC and in other animals and by more delicate methods 
than lethality. Inferences must not be drawn, therefore, from re- 
sponses to single exposures to the likely effect of repeated doses. 

(b) "We have found that toxicity, as judged by loss of weight and 
lethality, is associated with the fat-soluble fraction of cannabis; 
THC appears to be the main, but not the only, substance responsible. 
It appears impracticable, therefore, to dissociate the psychic and 
the toxic effects. 

(c) The question of lethality in man is important. It is often said 
there have been none. Since few practitioners would know how to 
diagnose a death caused, or contributed to, by cannabis, and since 
it could not at present be proved by forensic analysis, only scanty 
information can be expected in any case. The case reported by 
Heyndrickx et al., 1 in the light of this, is rather convincing. 

1 Heyndrlckx, A., Scheirls, C, and Schepens, P. (1969), J. Pharm. Belg. 24. 371. 


Possibly more important is to point to three ways in which can- 
nabis could indeed cause or facilitate death although proof in a 
particular case would be difficult, (a) It produces a considerable 
tachycardia, 2 and this may be associated with electrocardiographic 
changes and ventricular extrasystoles. 3 It is not at all impossible 
that this, in unfavorable circumstances in a chronic user, could 
progress to ventricular fibrillation 4 and death, (b) It causes a dila- 
tation of peripheral blood vessels, corresponding to the hypotensive 
action in animals. This probably underlies the "fainting attacks" 
reported in the literature as well as by my own contacts. This in- 
volves "postural hypotension," in which the capacity of the body to 
correct for the upright position fails, and the blood drains from 
the brain. As with other hypotensive drugs, if the subject could not 
become horizontal either deliberately or by falling— for example, 
because he was in a chair — blood supply to the brain might fail, 
(c) Cannabis, chiefly because of its cannabidiol content, can poten- 
tiate and prolong the action of barbiturates — as well as other drugs 
used in medical treatment. This could mean that a nonlethal dose of. 
barbiturate became lethal. 

Regardless of decisions about the law, one wishes that all can- 
nabis users were aware of these possibilities. 


Administration of cannabis during the vulnerable period of 
pregnancy has been found to cause fetal death and fetal abnormal- 
ity in three species of animals. The deformity includes lack of limbs — 
reduction-deformity. The factor responsible has not been identified 
but does not appear to be THC although new work is showing that 
THC kills a majority of fetuses and in the remainder produces an 
increased incidence of stillbirth and stunting. The effect is dose 
related, an important thing to establish if cause and effect are 

These results are sometimes dismissed on the grounds that any 
drug in sufficient dose will be teratogenic. While this is not quite 
accurate, there is evidence that serious disturbance of the mother 
can have such an effect. This gives an added importance to the cri- 
terion suggested by Robson and Sullivan which I would adopt; 
that a result should be taken as significant when the teratogenic dose 
is a small fraction of the dose lethal to the mother. This is the 
case with cannabis, and is in contrast to other drugs, including 
nicotine and aspirin. 

A very important question is whether cannabis directly affects 
the genetic material, that is, nucleic acid. Early reports of inter- 
ference with cell division indicated this. These have been confirmed. 
Dr. Nahas' and Dr. Morishima's reports here have clinched the issue. 
One must notice that general anesthetics as a class can also produce 
fetal abnormality. A provisional hypothesis for teratogenicity, there- 
fore is that this action of cannabis reflects its fat solubility and re- 

2 Acceleration of the heart rate. 

3 Extra beats of the heart originating not, as normally, in the auricles, but In the 
ventricles themselves. 

* A condition where the ventricular contraction becomes uncoordinated, and cardiac 
output falls. 


lation to anesthetics, and constitutes a sort of anesthesia, for in- 
stance, of limb buds developing in the fetus at critical periods— 
hence the reduction-deformity. It must be stressed that all I have 
said refers simply to the development of the fetus. There is also 
the question whether the genetic material, perhaps as a result of in- 
terference with cell division is altered — giving life to heritable 


Like the tar from cigarettes, reefer tar is carcinogenic when painted 
on mouse skin. Cannabis smoke produces changes in cultures of lung- 
tissue, and Dr. Leuchtenberger will be mentioning this, including 
loss of contact-inhibition between cells. THC in low concentration 
resembles the carcinogen methyl-chlolanthrene in generating malig- 
nancy in rat embryo cells incubated with a murine leucemia virus, 
but is slower in action. The irritant effect of the smoke on the respi- 
ratory tract is well known to users and is associated with bronchial 

These effects are becoming very important. Originally, one was 
uncertain about their significance, and about what the balance would 
be between the facts that more cigarettes than reefers will normally 
be smoked in any one day, whereas inhalation and retention of the 
smoke is much deeper and more efficient with the reefer. 

Senator Gurney. Would you describe what a reefer is to the com- 
mittee ? 

Dr. Paton. A reefer is a marihuana cigarette prepared in dif- 
ferent ways in different parts of the world. 

But now lung damage, in the form of emphysema, is being re- 
peatedly recorded and I was very interested to hear, in Dr. Heath's 
presentation today, of the respiratory condition of his monkeys. 
Emphysema is normally a disease of much later life; but now the 
quite unexpected — to me, at least — prospect of a new crop of respi- 
ratory cripples early in life, is opening up. Originally, I thought 
the cancer risk was the main problem ; cannabis has never been used 
extensively in a society with an expectation of life long enough to 
show a carcinogenic effect in man, until recent years. In effect, a 
new experiment in cancer epidemiology started 5 to 10 years ago. 
To this I would now add respiratory pathology generally; and be- 
cause it shows itself early, just as with cigarette smoking bron- 
chitis is an early warning of that pathology, I believe that medical 
epidemiological studies of pulmonary pathology of cannabis are on 
a wide scale, are now urgent for getting an early warning of a 
carcinogenic situation. 


Numerous such effects have now been described, which we can 
often class as cell pathology, including actions on microsomes, 1 on 
mitochondria, 2 on neurones, fibroblasts, white blood cells, and on 
dividing cells, affecting metabolism, energy utilization, synthesis of 

1 Structures inside the cell, particularly liver cells, responsible inter alia for detoxl- 

2 Structures Inside cells responsible for energy production. 


cellular constituents, and immunological responses. To this we must 
add the recent observation that chronic administration of THC to 
young rats leads to a reduction in brain and heart weight. Such 
effects are to be expected, rather than a matter of surprise, from a 
drug with a high affinity for lipid in a cell membrane. It should be 
noted that the local concentrations of THC or its metabolite in the 
cell membranes will be far higher than those in the blood ; theoreti- 
cally, one would expect a concentration factor of several hundred; 
experimentally, concentrations of 600-fold with brain and 380 with 
red cell membranes. 

An important aspect of these effects is what they imply for matura- 
tion of an individual; we are concerned not only with the effect of 
a drug on a mature adult, but also what it does to schoolchildren 
down to the ages of 11 and 12, still developing in many ways. The 
interference by cannabis with both cell metabolism and cell divi- 
sion is very worrying. 

Mr. Sourwtne. Mr. Chairman, may T ask one question ? Am I cor- 
rect in understanding the gist of what you are saying is this: that 
widespread use of marihuana is likely to produce in our children a 
generation of little old people? 

Dr. Paton. I think that is a little further than that in what I am 
saying, but it is a very accurate description. It is only an opinion 
but it is a very accurate expression of it, 

Mr. Sourwtne. And no one could predict what the third genera- 
tion would be in that case, could they ? 

Dr. Paton. No. 


It may be argued that actions in animals are of little relevance to 
man. However, the pharmaceutical industry, and the bodies which 
supervise it, do not operate on this pre-Darwinian principle. Diffi- 
culties chiefly arise when an inordinately high safety factor has 
been stipulated. But there is also misunderstanding over rates of 
dosage. It is to be expected that small animals will require propor- 
tionately larger doses — per unit body weight — than man, just as 
they need proportionately more food, because of their faster meta- 
bolic rate. One can estimate a mouse dose on this basis as 10 times 
that of man; taking this together with the rates of human use re- 
ported in WHO Special Keport No. 478 — up to or exceeding 10 
milligrams per kilogram THC per day — it appears that almost all 
the experimental work reported in animals is relevant to man. The 
conclusion is reinforced by the NIMH-sponsored toxicity studies on 
monkeys. A daily dose of 50 milligrams per kilogram orally of THC 
killed one of six monkeys; damage to the pancreas, ulcerative colitis, 
and myeloid hyperplasia were noted. This result, at doses which 
proved partially lethal at only 10 times some rates of human con- 
sumption, makes no allowance for contribution by other toxic ma- 
terials in cannabis. 


I mentioned high rates of human use. People have expressed in- 
credulty at this, yet it is well established. I would like to deposit an 
article on consumption in a group of English students. 


Senator Gurnet. The article will be received in the record and 
made a part of the record if it is available. 

[The article referred to may be found in the appendix, p. 393.] 
Dr. Paton. This is perhaps the best evidence yet, since the com- 
position of the actual reefers being used was measured ; uses ranged 
up to 199 milligrams THC per day. around 20 times the ordinary 
dose for a high. By itself it shows the degree of tolerance that is 
achieved, with the resulting need to take high doses for an effect, By 
the same token, toxicity and accumulation at these levels must be 


Although there are a number of human studies on the effects of 
single small doses, there is still no systematic modern study of the 
bodily effects of continued cannabis administration. One reason is 
that while limited dosage is acceptable for volunteers, dosage over 
a prolonged period at the higher rates of use at least in my view, 
is not. It would be possible to study users themselves, if a method 
of urine and blood analysis existed capable of verifying their actual 

If I could interpose here, near Oxford people have bought horse 
manure and smoked it as cannabis. There are other similar examples 
that are known by people familiar with the field. 

Senator Gurnet. That's a pretty dirty trick. 


Dr. Paton. Biochemical verification, however, is at present not 
practicable; as a result only the subject's testimony as to his rate of 
consumption of a substance of unknown composition is available, 
and this is hardly sufficient. Once methods of analysis of body fluids 
are adequate, the position should improve considerably. 


It is nevertheless possible and useful to construct a rough com- 
posite picture of all of the psychological effects in man, if one 
brings together a number of things. 

(a) The neurophysiological observations, in man and animals, of 
the kind which Dr. Heath has already discussed, of hypersynchron- 
ous discharges from the deeper parts of the brain — not the cortex — 
as a result of giving cannabis or THC. These discharges have been 
termed "epileptiform." 

(b) The observation by Campbell and his colleagues of an ap- 
parent loss of brain substance in the deeper regions, in a group of 
young chronic cannabis users. This needs further exploration, and 
it is likely that it is now possible with new noninvasive radio- 
graphic techniques. 

Senator Gurnet. What do you mean. Professor, by loss of brain 

Dr. Paton. Dr. Campbell's paper [see appendix, p. 383] has been 
deposited in an earlier hearing, and what he observed was, if you 
inject air into the spinal cord and you adjust the position of the 
patients head, you can get it to track into the inner fluid-filled cham- 


bers of the brain called the ventricles. He then x-rayed them and 
in short, found in a series of 10 the ventricles were significantly 
larger than in a series of 13 best controls that he could obtain. Be- 
cause the skull is a rigid box, if there is a larger empty space inside 
it the total substance of the brain must be correspondingly reduced. 
It was on that type of observation that he thought there must be a 
reduction in the mass of the brain, and it pointed also to the locali- 
zation where that reduction was taking place. There was a very in- 
teresting change of shape of ventricles that became rounded; and 
that suggests the loss of substance was in fact in adjacent regions to 
the ventricles — a point which Dr. Heath has already taken up at 
this meeting. 

(c) The cumulative property of THC, and its affinity for fat and 
hence for cell membranes. 

(d) The numerous psychiatric reports of gradual psychological 
change, which becomes less and less readily reversible, the longer 
the cannabis exposure. [This was first pointed out by Dr. Brom- 
berg 1 in this country in 1939, although delayed recovery may well have 
been known in the Moslem community in medieval times; see 
Schwarz, J. Amer. Med. Assn. 223, p.* 195. 1973.] This suggests 
something permanent or semipermanent. 

(e) The fact that most of the elements of this psychological 
change — paranoid feelings, change in mood, cognitive impairment, 
loss of memory, loss of concentration, amotivational state, introspec- 
tive preoccupation with internal imagery, hallucination — can be re- 
versibly produced by single doses of THC or cannabis in normal 

(f) The ability of cannabis to affect cellular metabolism and cell 

These findings converge to a remarkable extent in supporting a 
prima facie view that repeated cannabis use acts on the deeper parts 
of the brain — where sensory information is processed and mood con- 
trolled; that this is at first reversible, but becomes more persistent 
as cumulation occurs, and that later irreversible changes occur with 
loss of brain substance, due either to interference with the capacity 
of brain cells to synthesize their requirements or to interference with 
cell division. 

It is quite likely that all this would be accepted and acted upon, 
by the cannabis user, were it not for the visual imagery, and — 
here cannabis is very like nitrous oxide — the euphoria and the con- 
viction of insight and cosmic significance. 

Mr. Sourwine. Nitrous oxide is laughing gas ? 

Dr. Paton. Laughing gas. 


One may summarize this as follows: (1) Alcohol is taken, often 
diluted with food, and often for taste or to quench thirst rather than 
for psychic effect; it is eliminated in a few hours, there is little or 
no evidence for carcinogenicity or teratogenicity particularly if 
nutritional defect and correlation with smoking are allowed for; 

iBromberg, W. (1939). J. Amer. Med. Assn. 113, 4. 


psychotic phenomena only occur after heavy and prolonged dosage : 
it occurs naturally in the body of animals, and probably also in 
man; it has valid medical uses for nutrition and as a vasodilator; 
it escalates only to itself; the price paid for overuse is paid in 
later life. 

(2) Tobacco is taken partly for relaxation, partly to assist work, 
and there is some evidence of an improvement in mental function; 
the nicotine in it is rapidly metabolized and noncumulative ; the evi- 
dence suggests that it is the tar that is carcinogenic, and the risk 
can be reduced if inhalation is avoided, nicotine being absorbed 
through the mouth; it is not teratogenic; no psychotic phenomena 
occur; it is not a natural constituent; it has no medical use; it does 
not escalate; the price paid for overuse is paid in later life — reduc- 
ing life expectancy from about 75 years to 70 years. 

(3) Cannabis is taken specifically, and usually by itself— some- 
times with other drugs — for its psychic action ; it is cumulative and 
persistent; its tar is carcinogenic and failure to inhale reduces its 
effect considerably; experimentally it is teratogenic; psychotic phe- 
nomena may occur with a single dose; it is not a natural constitu- 
ent; prolonged trial in medicine from the 1840's led to its abandon- 
ment from pharmacopeias; it can predispose to the use of other 
drugs; the price for its overuse is paid in adolescence or in early 

Senator Gurnet. I am going to have to interrupt here, Professor 
Paton. I have another vote and that means I have just enough time to 
get there, so I will recess this until later. 

[A recess was taken.] 

[Whereupon, at 12 :45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., this same day.] 

Afternoon Session 

Senator Gurnet. The subcommittee will come to order. We will 
begin by finishing the statement of Professor Paton. 


Dr. Paton. I would like to summarize the last point I was making 
by saying it seems to mc that cannabis shares the disadvantages of 
alcohol and tobacco, together with its own psychotogenic and bio- 
chemical actions, its chronic effects being accentuated by its cumula- 
tive tendency, giving it much earlier adverse action. 


I should like to turn now to the question of legalization, about 
which, of course, I speak only as an individual. 

(a) Viewing cannabis as if it were a new pharmaceutical prod- 
uct, I could not agree to approval being given to the introduction, 
for general and repeated consumption, of a substance shown experi- 
mentally to be carcinogenic, teratogenic, and cumulative, and able 
to interfere with a variety of cellular processes, until it had been 


shown, quite unequivocally, that, for some reason, humans were 
exempt from the actions concerned. 

(b) There is no rational dividing line between cannabis and 
other drugs such as LSD or some opiates. A high dose of cannabis 
overlaps with a low dose of LSD, in its hallucinatory and psycho- 
tomimetic action, and with the less active opiates, in respect of 
analgesia, euphoria, and "day-dreaming" state. In fact, since can- 
nabis is unique among these drugs for its cumulative action, I 
would put it lower in the list for legalization than some others. One 
needs to ask, what other drugs can produce prolonged cognitive 
impairment in a young person? 

(c) In a similar way, it does not seem feasible to me to propose 
legalization of cannabis of limited potency. There is in fact an 
analogy with alcohol here: we have marihuana, 1-2 percent THC, 
and weak beers, 2 percent alcohol; hashish, say 8 percent THC, 
wines, 8-15 percent alcohol; and so to speak, "hard hashish," that 
is hashish oil, on the illicit market — up to 30-40 percent THC, hard 
liquor, 30-50 percent alcohol. To suggest one could legislate for 1 or 
2 percent THC is like suggesting one could legislate for weak beer. 
It would remove none of the present objections to cannabis legis- 
lation, while yet allowing the drug to be used. 

(d) The significance of progression from cannabis to other drugs 
has been much discussed, and my own 1968 paper severely, but 
fallaciously, criticized. The fallacy was exposed, inter alia, by R. C. 
Pillard in "the New England Journal of Medicine (197) 255, '416-7). 
The final report of the Le Dain Commission concluded as regards 
LSD that "the use of cannabis definitely facilitates the use of LSD 
or predisposes a certain number of individuals to experiment with 
it." The arguments they give, including the relationship between the 
nature of the two drusrs and the findings that over 95 percent of 
those who had used LSD had used cannabis, were the same as those 
I had advanced in respect of heroin and cannabis. My argument 
also cited the remarkable temporal coincidence between cannabis 
convictions and heroin addiction in the United Kingdom; evidence 
of this sort has not been provided in respect of LSD. 

Today, with the further evolution of drug use, it seems clear that 
depending on availability of drug, various patterns of progression 
are possible, in which one would include cannabis to opiates, can- 
nabis to LSD, and cannabis low potency to cannabis high potency. 
Simple reasons can now be seen; that cannabis increases suggesti- 
bility — this was referred to in the Wooten Report in Britain, in 
1968 — impairs memory, that is, your capacity to remember the 
criteria by which you judge your actions; and that it overlaps in 
pharmacological actions with opiates — euphoria, analgesia, day- 
dreaming state, and with LSD — visual imagery. It is therefore well- 
suited to providing a halfway house, converting one major step 
directly to use of opiates, LSD, or hashish, into two smaller and 
more easily accepted steps. 

The growth of polydrug use may now have made it impossible to 
define patterns of progression accurately. But I would still hazard 
the opinion that no program to get rid of opiate addiction or LSD 
use will really succeed until cannabis use declines. Cannabis can 
serve as well to cause relapse, as to initiate drug use. 


(e) The last point in weighing up the virtues and disadvantages 
of legalization, of which I am merely putting one side, of course, 
concerns the age of those involved. If someone dies of alcoholism 
or lung cancer at the age of 50 onwards, that is a loss; but the in- 
dividual has had 30 years of adult life, and the chance to make 
his own contribution. But the adolescent, dead or socially inacti- 
vated by 20 years old, has never even had a start on mature life; 
the loss, both* for him or her, and for society, is incalculably greater. 

Senator Gurnet. What do you mean. Professor, by socially inacti- 
vated ? 

Dr. Paton. It means that he is brought to a state where he can- 
not make the ordinary contribution one expects. That the Jobs he 
does, the building up of family, the role he plays in society are 
just so much less than his potential. 

Senator Gurnet. Caused by the excessive use of marihuana or 
cannabis ? 

Dr. Paton. Yes. One is referring to so many pictures. With a 
drug addict, that is a complete pattern. But I do not believe it is 
necessary to postulate full development of classical drug addiction; 
some of the boys that I see who have had a university training and 
now are doing trivial jobs, if they go on like that for 5 years at a 
vital period in their life, I think that is going to mean a measure 
of social inactivation. 


My own opinion is that it would be disastrous to make it legal 
even to possess cannabis. If one talks, not to lawyers or sociologists 
who are concentrating on penal problems, but to schoolchildren and 
students, at least in the United Kingdom, it is not at all clear that 
a majority would even wish for this to happen. But nevertheless, 
there would be for the foreseeable future a large number of people 
breaking the law, just as they do over speed limits, customs regula- 
tions, and income tax return. It seems that one would have to treat 
a cannabis possession similarly. 

I might say I find it dimcult to extrapolate from English to 
American practice here. We do not have traffic tickets. We have, 
it is a court offense, and I do not want to be misinterpreted by say- 
ing that I think cannabis possession should be treated too trivially. 
I am still thinking of it as a court offense. One has to treat can- 
nabis possession similarly accepting that the majority of offenses 
would not be recognized, yet maintaining the legal position about 
it. Viewing it in this way might, indeed, help to deglamorize it. 

But something more is needed. It would be quite right for the 
debate to sharpen our criticism of alcohol and tobacco. Further, for 
a significant number of youngsters, who have found a reward or 
consolation, or pleasure in cannabis, there is the question, "If not 
pot, what?" It is for the framing of a constructive answer to this 
question that new creative thinking is urgently needed. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, professor. I have a lot of questions 
I would like to ask but we have had such a situation over there 
in the Senate floor today that we lost about half of our time so I 


am going to let counsel do most of the questioning so we can get 
at the areas that we want to put in the record. I just do want to 
ask you one question. 

You said, in your statement you said you spent a good deal of 
time upon the effects upon cells of cannabis and so I would ask you 
this question : in your opinion, does the use of cannabis result in 
permanent cell damage to the human body ? 

Dr. Paton. I think you have to specify the cell. It seems to me 
it is quite clear from the recorded evidence about bronchial, pulmo- 
nary pathology that you can say there are cells that were damaged. 
I think the fundamental question one is getting at in that question, 
well, there are two points. It has been said that cannabis does not 
affect cells ; a popular book on the subject says no sign of cell damage 
has been recorded. That is just false. There are many such recorded 
things in an experimental wrj. 

But the real question, to my mind, is does it cause cellular dam- 
age in the brain of an irreversible kind ? 

Senator Gurney. That was the next question I was going to put. 

Dr. Paton. And I do not think we can say other than that there 
is a high probability of that. What this needs is top class neuro- 
pathology to be done as microscopical sections or electromicroscopic 
photographs showing the change and until that is done people can 
disbelieve it. But I think the probabilities are high. 

Senator Gurney. In any event, the use of cannabis certainly has 
a dramatic effect upon cells in the brain. 

Dr. Paton. Yes. Functionally, there is no doubt about the effect 
on them. 

Senator Gurney. Counsel. 

Mr. Martin. Just a few questions. General Lewis W. Walt, when 
he reported to the subcommittee on the world drug situation in 
1972, described marihuana as a kind of universal threshold drug 
through which young people make their entry into the drug cul- 
ture — the drug of first preference. Would you consider this an 
accurate description ? 

Dr. Paton. On a simple question of fact in British surveys, at 
least, it is not always a drug of first preference, and I think if one 
wants to look generally one has at least to put amphetamines along- 

I do not know whether it is the occasion of entry into a culture 
or a cause of the culture. I was very struck, despite its, I suppose, 
descriptive character, by the paper by Drs. Kolansky and Moore — 
I think it is being talked about later — which showed not only that 
with people receiving cannabis, their personality and behavior went 
a certain way, this was known, but also that if they gave up using 
cannabis they tracked back in their religions or in matters such as 
habits or family breakdown, or loss of jobs; and I have begun to 
wonder, as other people have, whether it is not that cannabis is 
an entry to a culture but that cannabis creates an outlook which 
generates a culture. So that I do not quite want to accept General 
Walt's remarks and I just make those comments on them. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you. 

Now, it is also widely believed in this country that marihuana does 


not lead to tolerance or habituation. That statement has figured in 
a number of reports. Does this conform with your own experience ? 

Dr. Paton. I have had no direct experience in man, just in re- 
ports, but it seems to me the evidence shows it is false. It seems 
to me it has been shown to be false since Mayor LaGuardia's re- 
port in the 1940's. They had experiments there which showed users 
were three times more tolerant than nonusers, and all the evidence 
since then has substantiated this. 

So far as I know, the only reason to suefffest that it is not true 
is what I regard as a rather poorly controlled study by Drs. Weil, 
Zinberg and Nelsen which, of course, is very well known. 

Mr. Martin. You mentioned the fact. Professor Paton, that you 
have by this time accumulated some 700 scientific research papers 
on marihuana since you first embarked on this study some 5 or 6 
years ago. Would you be prepared to offer an estimate of the 
consensus of these papers? 

To put the question a little differently, do you see any trend in 
either direction on the part of cannabis research scientists around 
the world ? 

Dr. Paton. I think scientists as a body tend to feel vulnerable 
about value judgments, and I would say the bulk of these papers 
rather try to avoid saying cannabis is good or cannabis is bad. 
At the same time I think, and I will not put it stronger than 
this, there is a mental reserve which has begun to appear in the 
scientific literature and I certainly notice this at scientific meet- 
ings. There was a meeting a fortnight ago in England where I was 
surprised at the caution about cannabis expressed. I would link 
this, perhaps going beyond your question, by saying that I think 
too, there has been a change in the nature of the work; that now 
in what I call cell pathology, analytic work on cellular behavior, 
there is a great deal of recent work of that kind, and much less 
functional experimental psychology studies, although that goes on. 
I suspect that these two trends are linked. People are seeing how 
important it is to ask, we will call it experimental functional or 
pathological or cellular questions, and that the changes toward 
reserve of attitude and in experimental techniques in fact are linked. 

Mr. Martin. If I understood your remarks correctly, Professor 
Paton, what you said implies that you have met very few cannabis 
research scientists who now take a tolerant or benign attitude to- 
ward cannabis, who feel that it is not seriously harmful and we do 
not have to be terribly concerned about its spread through society. 

Dr. Paton. I do not usually raise this subject with them because 
it is in the area where one feels vulnerable. But wherever I have 
raised it, I would say that your statement is absolutely right. Now, 
practically, none of them are willing to let cannabis go free. 

Mr. Martin. That concludes my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have one. Mr. Chairman. 

Professor, am I correct in my understanding from your testi- 
mony about teratogenicity that when a pregnant woman smokes 
marihuana her baby is in danger ? 

Dr. Paton. Yes. 


Mr. Sourwine. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. One final question, Professor. You mentioned 
in your comments on the psychological effects of cannabis, you 
mentioned down here that there were paranoid feelings, changing 
mood, cognitive impairment, loss of memory, loss of concentration, 
that sort of thing, and you mentioned that in respect to this could 
be reversibly produced by single doses of the chemical THC. 

My question is, do you have anything to say on the continued 
and persistent use of cannabis ? Would' it bring permanent para- 
noid feelings in these other matters that I just referred to? 

Dr. Paton. My own thinking about this starts with a paper by 
Dr. Bromberg I mentioned earlier. He did not himself analyze 
it in this way but if you do analyze it 1 you end up roughly like 
this about a number * of psychopathological responses which he 
studied as a clinical psychiatrist; you find if the person consumed 
cannabis iust a day or two they recover very quickly from the 
psychopathology. If it had been weeks it might take some days. 
Tf it had been months it would take weeks. If it was longer than 
that it became months or more. 

This agrees with everything I have seen privately. I do not think 
we can name the numbers involved. But you know, so long as one 
sees these results, I do believe that it is a major thing; so much so, 
if I can say so, that my own future research, for which the Medical 
Research Council has given me a very substantial grant, is going 
to be to try to throw light on what is happening not only after 
cannabis but after alcohol, and barbiturates, in the way of pro- 
longed damage. The evidence as it stands makes me believe either 
that the drug is persisting as such for much longer than we think 
even on existing evidence — which would just suggest for months 
at most — or that cells have been killed or very badly damaged and 
that time is required for repair. Or, and this is a third possibility 
which has not been suggested, that something is made in the body 
from the drug, what one calls a reactive intermediate, which com- 
bines in a new way with constituents in the membrane of the cell 
to produce more or less permanent changes in function. These are 
three different things, and my own personal research effort is going 
to try to discover which and what the laws governing these are. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, thank you very much, professor, for your 
contribution to this panel and these hearings. 

We will take our next witness, Dr. Stenchever. 

Doctor, would you identify yourself for the record ? 


Dr. Stenchever. Yes; I am Dr. Morton Stenchever, chairman of 
the Department of Obstetrics and Department of Gynecology of the 
University of Utah. 

Senator Gurnet. I will go into a few questions regarding your 
background to determine your expertise. 

You obtained your medical degree in 1956 at the University of 

1 See table III, page 352, in "Marihuana," ed. R. Mechoulain, Academic Press, 1973 
in chapter by W. D. M. Paton, R. G. Pertwee and Elisabeth Tylden. 


Dr. Stenchever. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. You completed your residency in obstetrics and 
gynecology at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in 1960? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And you had a post-doctoral fellowship m the 
field of mammalian cell genetics— or what is that— cytogenetics— 
you can see I am no doctor — at Case Western Reserve University in 
Cleveland in 1962? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And since 1965, you have been in charge of two 
major laboratories working in the field of human and mammalian 
cytogenetics ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes. Cytogenetics. 

Senator Gurnet. The first laV oratory you took charge of was at 
Case Western Reserve ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. Since 1970 you have been in charge of a re- 
search laboratory at the University of Utah, where you also serve 
as chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are the author of a medical textbook 
entitled, "Human Cytogenetics" ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And the author or coauthor of some 50 scientific 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. Generally, what are they on ? 

Dr. Stenchever. The majority are on genetics. 

Senator Gurnet. The most recent article that you coauthored 
was entitled, "Chromosome Breakage in Users of Marihuana", which 
appeared in the January 1974 issue of the American Journal of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology ? 

Dr. Stenchever. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. All right, Would you proceed with your state- 
ment, Doctor? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes. The statement I am presenting today is 
essentially the report on research conducted by a team consisting of 
myself, and my colleagues, Terry J. Kunysz and Marjorie A. Allen, 
at the University of Utah College of * Medicine, Department of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology. Basically, this research was performed 
during 1971 and 1972. It was recently described at greater length 
in the January issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and 

The observation that psychoactive drugs could cause chromosome 
damage in users was introduced by Cohen and associates and others 
several years ago. It was first reported that chromosome damage oc- 
curred because of the use of lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD. How- 
ever, a number of studies since that time have cast doubt on whether 
the drug actually damages chromosomes in users and in a recent 
review of the literature, Lang concluded that it probably did not. 
Most users of LSD also use other drugs, particularly marihuana. 
Gilmour and coworkers found no increase of chromosome aberrations 

in light users of marihuana. However, they did find an increase in 
chromosome breakage in 11 heavy users. In most cases, these users 
were taking multiple drugs. In a study of rat cells. Pace and as- 
sociates could find no significant increase in chromosome breakage 
after exposure of the cells to marihuana in vitro. Studies by Neu 
and colleagues and by myself and Marjorie Allen yielded no in- 
creased incidence of chromosome breakage in the in vitro experi- 
ments in human cells exposed to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, 
one of the active ingredients in marihuana. Marihuana, however, is 
a composite of a number of agents and its effect on chromosomes is 
still to be defined. 

It was the purpose of our study to report the results of the effect 
of marihuana use on the chromosomes of a group of healthy college 

Forty-nine users — 29 males and 20 females — and 20 control sub- 
jects — 12 males and 8 females — were studied concurrently. The 
average age of the users was 22.3 years, with a range of 17 to 34, 
and the average age of the control subjects was 28.7 years, with a 
range of 13 to 52 years. All of the users were college students. 
Some of the controls were college students while others were mem- 
bers of the staff working at the university. I might add it was diffi- 
cult to find people who were not using marihuana. No individual 
in the control group has been exposed to any drugs or medications 
for 6 months prior to the study, other than an occasional aspirin, and 
none had been exposed to ionizing irradiation for at least 6 months. 
A complete medical history was taken on all individuals in the 
study, as was the recording of the use of alcohol, nicotine and 
caffeine. The use of marihuana was tabulated for each user accord- 
ing to the date and amount used, classification of the drug as esti- 
mated by the user, and any other drug used concurrently. All users 
smoked as their means of ingestion. Marihuana had been used for 
a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 9 years, with an aver- 
age of 3 years, and previously had been used between 5 hours and 
30 days prior to the study. 

The studies were carried out on blood leukocytes — these are white 
blood cells — and tissue culture and harvesting techniques were of a 
standard type used in our laboratory for several years and reported 
on many occasions, and in keeping with techniques used in other 
laboratories. When slides of chromosome spreads were prepared, 
they were coded so that the observer would not know whether the 
slides were from a study or control patient. One hundred consecu- 
tive intact methaphase spreads for each individual were scored 
for chromosome damage, including gaps and breaks, and for the 
presence of abnormal chromosomes. Every abnormal cell was photo- 
graphed for careful analysis. We were scoring methaphase plates — 
these are cells which are undergoing mitosic cell division, and that 
is the time at which you can see the chromosomes most clearly. A 
chromosome, for those of you who are not acquainted with it, is a 
structural entity in the cell nucleus which contains the genes and, 
therefore, is dircetly related to the phenomenon of heredity. 



Five basic questions were asked during the study. The first was 
"Does marihuana use cause chromosome damage?" There was an 
average of 3.4 cells with chromosome breaks — range to 8 — per 
100 cells per user and 1.2 cells with breaks — range to 5 — per 100 
cells per control subject. In other words, 3.4 percent of the cells in 
the users showed damage, 1.2 percent of the cells in the controls 
showed damage. The difference was significant at the p < 0.05 level. 
While there was an increase in abnormal chromosome forms seen 
in the users group over those in the controls, however, the numbers 
of cells involved were small enough that no statistical analysis 
could be carried out. 

Question 2 — "Does the concurrent use of other drugs influence 
the extent of chromosome damage?" Twenty-seven users of mari- 
huana reported the use of no other drugs during the period of mari- 
huana use, whereas 22 reported the use of other drugs, including 
barbiturates, amphetamines, tranquilizers, mescaline, LSD, and 
heroin. Chromosome damage in users of marihuana alone averaged 
3.1 cells with breaks per 100 cells, whereas users of marihuana and 
other drugs averaged 3.7 cells with breaks per 100 cells. The differ- 
ence was not statistically significant. 

Question 3 — "Does the frequency of use relate to the extent of 
damage?" For the purposes of this study a light user was considered 
to be an individual who used marihuana one time or less a week 
and a heavy user a person who used marihuana two or more times 
a week. 

Senator Gurney. When you say using marihuana, are you talking 
about smoking one cigarette ? 

Dr. Stenchever. If they smoked one cigarette once or less a week 
they were considered light users. If they smoked two or more a week 
they were considered heavy users, a bit different from the definitions 
you heard this morning but this was the standard we used. 

Light users had used the drug between 6 months and 9 years 
with an average of 2.9 years and had last used the drug 18 hours 
to 30 days before the study, with an average of 5.4 days. Heavy 
users had used the drug 9 months to 7 years with an average of 
3.4 years and had last used the drug 5 hours to 5 days with an 
average of 1.4 days prior to the study. Twenty-seven users fell into 
the heavy use category and had an average breakage rate of 3.8 
cells per 100 while 22 users were in the light category and had a 
breakage rate of 3.2 cells per 100. The difference was not significant. 

The fourth question involved whether or not the use of caffeine 
concurrently with marihuana influenced the extent of chromosome 
damage. While very few of the individuals did not use caffeine, the 
spread among nonusers of percent breakage was such that there 
seemed to be no effect additive by the use of caffeine over the use 
of marihuana alone. 

The fifth question was "Do male or female subjects respond dif- 
ferently to marihuana with respect to chromosome damage?" No sta- 
tistical difference could be seen between them, the 29 male subjects 
having a breakage rate of 3.7 and the 20 female subjects a break- 
age rate of 2.9 cells per 100, a nonstatistically significant difference. 



All data from the study including historical data was computer- 
ized and multifactorial analysis carried out. That is, we compared 
all factors to all other factors in computerized fashion. The only 
positive correlation of statistical significance was the use of mari- 
huana and the presence of chromosome damage. 

A fault of previous studies had been that frequently the drug 
users had been individuals on multiple drugs and with poor eating 
and hygiene habits. The individuals in our study were all college 
students with good nutrition and, for the most part, good hygiene. 
The study did not demonstrate which ingredient in marihuana was 
capable of doing the chromosome damage and future studies in 
our laboratory on in vitro and animal studies will hopefully deter- 
mine this point. The study did not shed any light into the ques- 
tion of whether or not this chromosome breaking agent or any other 
chromosome breaking agent is capable of causing abnormalities of 
unborn children, an increased mutation rate, or an increased inci- 
dence of cancer. However, all of these possibilities are potentially 
there and only further studies of a more detailed nature will be 
able to answer these questions. It is of interest that a recent study 
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by 
Jacobsen and Berlin entitled "Possible Keproductive Detriment in 
LSD Users" pointed out that there was indeed a higher incidence of 
abortion rate and fetal abnormalities in 140 women and their con- 
sorts who were using LSD. Unfortunately, in reading this paper 
it became evident that 100 of these individuals were using mari- 
huana as well. The ability to pinpoint actual problems with any 
specific drug is difficult in a human experiment because humans 
tend to experiment with a number of different drugs and also, of 
course, are subjected to many other variables in their life style. 

In conclusion, we feel our data have demonstrated that there is an 
increased chromosome breakage rate in users of marihuana and that 
this apparently is not related to the extent of use of the drug, as 
light users had about the same damage rate as did heavy users. We 
have not demonstrated a link between marihuana use and an in- 
crease in fetal damage or fetal loss, in mutagenesis or in the in- 
creased incidence of cancer. We have demonstrated a need to identify 
the agent in marihuana which causes chromosome damage and our 
data would suggest that further studies in both human and animals 
should be undertaken to determine if indeed this agent is capable 
of damaging fetuses, causing an increased mutation rate and pos- 
sibly being related to the development of neoplasms. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, as I understand it, Doctor, your studies 
do not show, even though there was chromosome damage, exactly 
what the effect of that would be. But let me ask this question. Are 
there any medical studies that show what the effect of chromosome 
damage is ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Most of the data on what chromosome damage 
means is tangential. For instance, in people who are irradiated 
there is a higher incidence of abnormal children and a higher in- 
cidence of cancer development and they indeed have an increased 
number of chromosome breaks in their circulating: cells and in the 


cells of other tissue. In people from certain families, where familial 
conditions tend to be associated with increased chromosome break- 
age rates, in other words, more fragile chromosomes, the incidence 
of abnormal children and cancer is higher in these families. A 
number of agents such as the anticancer drugs are capable of 
breaking chromosomes and indeed have been associated with a 
higher incidence of malformation in fetuses. So it is tangential 
data. When you find a chromosome breaking agent, what you have 
is an agent which is capable of getting into the nucleus of a cell 
and causing damage. What you see in chromosome damage is the 
process of cell damage. 

Now, there are a number of conditions where rearrangements for 
chromosomes occur, in other words, two chromosomes breaking and 
exchanging parts in the healing process leading to well-known medi- 
cal abnormalities which are diagnosable and which are associated 
with chromosomal abnormalities. And there is a whole slew of these 

One has to ask how do you get to this? What makes these people 
have rearranged chromosomes, and we suspect somewhere along the 
line breakage took place and rearrangement took place? So an agent 
which can break chromosomes can conceivably lead to these types 
of problems. 

Another thing that an agent that can break chromosomes can 
potentially do is damage the genes in the chromosomes and, there- 
fore, bring about a mutation, and a number of breaking agents are 
indeed mutagens, so we have that information. 

Now, the other thing that is potentially there is that the damage 
to the nucleus may injure the cell in such a way that it may elude 
the body's basic filtering defense mechanisms and lead to a neo- 
plasm. We know most cancers do come from one cell and that is 
a cell that somehow eludes the body defense mechanisms and 
there are probably people who are more likely to do this than 
others. In other words, cancer-prone individuals. So if chromosome 
damage takes place in these people they are at greater risk of de- 
veloping cancer than other people. 

Senator Gtjrney. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin. Is it correct, Dr. Stenchever, that the research which 
you conducted with your colleagues in the first research which ex- 
perimentally substantiates that marihuana results in chromosome 
breakage ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. You make the point in your paper that prior re- 
searchers, or a number of prior researchers, have come up with 
different findings, that is, they found no evidence of breakage. How 
do you account for the difference between the results they obtained 
and the results you obtained ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Well, I think there are a lot of reasons for that. 
Basically, most of the studies were small studies, where a number 
of variables were not controlled, such as the use of other drugs. I 
believe that in coding and scoring for breaks one must take great 
care in doing it blindly because if one does not then research bias 
comes into it whether you are for or against what you are look- 
ing for. It is only human to only see what you want to see. 


In our laboratory all of the studies that we have ever carried 
out in the area of chromosome damage have been done blindly so 
that the individual doing the scoring does not know from where 
the cells came and I think that has been one of the bigger criticisms 
that have come to the previous studies. 

Mr. Martin. In examining all the facts in retropect, Dr. Stenchever, 
do you believe that you and your colleagues controlled all of the 
factors in your experiments as carefully as they could be controlled ? 

Dr. Stenchever. Well, we controlled bias because there was no 
way that the individual doing the scoring could know who it — 
which individual had furnished the blood. We tried to control the 
other variables by taking as careful a history as we could, and by 
computerizing all of our data and doing multifactorial compari- 
sons so that we could identify at least which areas were statistically 
significant. In that respect I would say we probably controlled the 
variables. Of course, when you deal with humans you can only 
go by what they tell you and I think this is the biggest problem 
with human experimentation. 

Mr. Martin. Has anyone faulted your research on the basis of 
inadequate controls or procedures? 

Dr. Stenchever. Not since it was published. 

Mr. Martin. As you know, or as you are probably aware, your 
study does not agree with a fairly recent study performed on mari- 
huana smokers in Jamaica. This study found no evidence of chromo- 
some breakage. In fact, they found nonsmokers had chromosome 
damage slightly more often than smokers. Would you be prepared 
to offer a comment on the difference between this finding and your 
own findings? 

Dr. Stenchever. Well, I did have the privilege of seeing a reprint 
of this material, and there were a number of differences between 
that study and our study, as I recall. There may have been some 
technical problems in that the people reporting reported on 25 
chromosome spreads per individual and then lumped all of their 
data together so they were comparing the total number of cells from 
users with the total number of so-called controls. I think this is a 
hazardous thing. You have to consider each individual separately 
and you have got to do enough cells so that you can overcome the 
artifacts of small numbers, and 25 is a very small number. 

The suggestion that only 25 cells were scored would make me 
think they had technical difficulties because in our laboratory it 
would be possible to score 10,000 cells if you had the urge to do 
so. We get lots and lots of material to work with. But there are 
tissue culture laboratories that probably have not gotten far enough 
along in their technique to where this is possible, and when I see 
very small numbers reported it implies to me that probably the 
technique is at fault. When the technique is at fault then a tre- 
mendous number of other variables that can influence the perform- 
ance in tissue culture come into play and with critical data. 

Control groups in our laboratory consistently have breakage rates 
of between 1 and 2 percent. And as it has turned out here, 1.2 per- 
cent and that is what we find year after year after year. I be- 


lieve their control group showed a much higher number of break- 
age which would again imply there were other factors at play. 

I think, all in all, I would have to say I would really have to 
see the specifics of their data but I would guess there were tech- 
nical variances there that one could criticize. 

Mr. Martin. You state that your research has satisfied you that, 
contrary to previous impressions, LSD is not responsible for human 
chromosome breakage. In the light of this, would you say that LSD 
is safe to use or reasonablv safe to use ? 

Dr. Stenchever. If I had to choose, I would probably use mari- 
huana. I think LSD is potentially a very dangerous drug and, the 
fact, that we could not prove it broke chromosomes would not 
detract from my saying that it is a drug that should not be used. 
One thing I think about the study of marihuana was their inability 
to find chromosome damage in pure LSD users and our observation 
that LSD users from previous studies had all been using marihuana 
and, at the same time, we were doing a series of studies on repro- 
ductive failure in our laboratory looking at couples who were in- 
fertile or having habitual abortion looking for chromosome reasons 
for their problem and, it became apparent that almost without ex- 
ception when we found chromosome breakage in these people _ we 
could elicit a history of marihuana use. It could be due to wide- 
spread use of marihuana in the community and in no way is sci- 
entifically valid but nontheless these two observations, the fact we 
were seeing damage in marihuana users and we were finding no 
damage in pure LSD users, we were fortunate enough to have a 
smaller group, which led us into the experiment I just reported. 
And I must say we did an in vitro study tissue culture study with 
THC which turned out to be almost negative and I almost lost 
interest in doing the current study because I thought we were deal- 
ing with a drug which did not break chromosomes. But having 
done this study I am convinced that marihuana is a breaking agent. 

Mr. Martin. Have you been the object of any attacks or abuse 
as a result of your work on marihuana and chromosome damage? 

Dr. Stenchever. Well, I think that basically what happens is 
people want to hear what they want to hear, and when I first pre- 
sented these data in a conference a year ago it was picked up by the 
newspapers, as one would expect. It was hot copy, and without any- 
one having the opportunity to look at our data or our studies a 
number of criticisms have come up. They said it obviously was 
wrong, and I was attacked because I was an obstetrician and, there- 
fore, knew nothing about genetics. Of course, they did not real- 
ize I had had training in genetics as well, and a number of kinds of 
superficial criticism came up which implied to me that people did not 
want to believe marihuana was a damaging drug. 

But I will say this: since the paper was published I have had no 
criticisms so I think when people had a chance to look at the data 
they become more reasonable. 

IVIr. Martin. That concludes my questions. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. None, sir. 


Senator Gurnet. Just one question of interest to me. Do you have 
any problem in getting; subjects to test there at the university? 

Dr. Stenchever. The problems I have are in finding controls. 
Unfortunately, marihuana is in very wide use even on our campus. 
I do not know whether it is this year but 3 years ago I polled 100 
students and 98 had tried marihuana at least one time. 

Senator Gurnet. How about LSD ? 

Dr. Stenchever. LSD has fallen off in its use. When I find some- 
one who has used LSD by and large, they are using a lot of dif- 
ferent drugs, they are experimenting at a higher level than just 
marihuana smoking. 

Senator Gurnet. I am told that this hearing room has been re- 
served beginning a few minutes from now, so we will go to room 
1318. That is down the hall to the right around the corner. I am 
sorry we have to do this but we thought we would be finished long 
before now. Room 1318. 

[Whereupon, the hearing was moved to room 1318.] 

Senator Gurnet. The subcommittee will come to order again. 

I hope you are patient. 

Dr. Nahas, would you identify yourself for the record, please? 


Dr. Nahas. My name is Gabriel Nahas, I am a research professor 
of anesthesiology at the College of Physicians at Columbia 

Senator Gurnet. I will ask you a few questions about your back- 
ground, you were born in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1920? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. You entered the University of Toulouse Medi- 
cal School in 1938 ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. While you were at the medical school during 
World War II, you played an important role in the French Resist- 
ance movement, is that right? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. For your activities in the French Resistance, you 
received the Legion of Honor and the Croix de Guerre from the 
French Government, the Order of the British Empire from the 
British, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Gold Palm 
from the United States, is that correct ? 

Dr. Nahas. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Your citation for the Medal of Freedom stated 
that it had been awarded for your services in directing an evasion 
network that had been responsible for the escape of 200 allied air- 
men, half of them Americans, is that correct? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. I certainly want to congratulate you. 

Doctor, on your qualifications, you received your medical degree 
from the Toulouse Medical School in 1944 ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 


Senator Gurnet. And you were subsequently given a Ph. D. in 
physiology from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And from 1954 to 1955 you served as chief of 
the laboratory of experimental surgery at the Hospital Marie 
Lannelongue in Paris, and from 1957 to 1959 you served at Walter 
Reed Hospital as chief of the respiratory section of the department 
of cardiorespiratory diseases ? 

In 1959 you joined Columbia University as associate professor 
and director of research in the department of anesthesiology? In 
this post you have had the rank of full professor from 1962 to date? 
You also serve as an adjunct professor at the Institute of Anes- 
thesiology of the University of Paris, Faculty of Medicine? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are the author or coauthor of more 
than 400 scientific papers, and the author as well of a number of 
monographs ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. In December 1972 you published a work entitled 
"Marihuana, Deceptive Weed?" 

It is accurate, is it not, that this book was given the cold shoulder 
by all of the TV talk shows; that the New York Times failed to 
review it, even though it had favorably reviewed some half-dozen 
books that were promarihuana ; and that finally 16 faculty members 
of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons this 
last January 28, sent a joint letter to the editor of the New York 
Times Book Section, urging that they let your book be reviewed, 
in the interest of balance and fairness, is that correct ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. Did the senders ever receive a reply to this letter ? 

Dr. Nahas. No. 

Senator Gurnet. Could you provide a copy of the letter for the 
record ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

[The letter referred to follows :] 

College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University, 

Department of Neurology, 
New York, N.Y., January 28, 1974- 
Mr. John Leonard, 
Book Review Editor, 
New York Times Book Review Section, 
New York, N.Y. 

Dear Mr. Leonard : The undersigned have read with interest the book by 
Dr. Gabriel Nahas, "Marihuana, Deceptive Weed." Dr. Nahas, after thoroughly 
discussing the scientific, medical and social aspects of marihuana concludes 
that its usage is quite harmful to man and society. This stand contrasts 
with that of other authors such as Dr. L. Grinspoon and Mr. E. M. Brecher 
who minimize the danger of this drug and advocate the legalization of mari- 
huana sales. The books of these authors were favorably reviewed in the 
Sunday New York Times Book Review Section. 

It seems therefore only fair to us that a Review of the book by Dr. Nahas 
be also published by The Times, so that the other side of the marihuana 

33-371 O - 74 


story be also presented to your readers. This Review would be especially 
justified, since recent scientific evidence indicates that marihuana induces 
cellular damage in man. 
Sincerely yours, 

William M. Manger, MD, Ph.D. 
William A. Blanc, M.D., Professor of Pathology ; Robert A. Esser, 
M.D., Instructor of Psychiatry ; Henry C. Frick, M.D., Professor 
of Clinical Obs. & Gyn. ; Allen I. Hyman M.D., Asst. Professor 
of Anesthesiology ; George A. Hyman, M.D., Assoc. Clinical 
Professor of Medicine ; Joannes H. Karls, M.D. Assoc. Professor 
of Anesthesiology ; Donald W. King, M.D., Professor of Pathol- 
ogy ; Ferdinand F. McAllister, M.D., Professor of Clinical Sur- 
gery; William M. Manger, M.D., Ph.D., Instructor of Medicine; 
Lester C. Mark, M.D., Professor of Anesthesiology ; Kermit L. 
Pines, M.D., Assoc. Professor of Clin. Medicine ; Herbert 
Rackow, M.D., Professor of Anesthesiology ; Ralph W. Richter, 
Assoc. Clin. Professor of Neurology ; Sidney C Werner, M.D., 
Professor of Clinical Medicine; Phillip Zeidenberg, M.D., Ph. D., 
Professor of Psychiatry ; and Henry Brill, M.D., Lecturer in 
Psychiatry, also, Member, National Commission on Marihuana 
and Drug Abuse. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you. Dr. Nahas. We will now proceed 
with your statement, if you will, please. 

Dr. Nahas. I am honored to be invited to testify as a scientific 
witness before this distinguished committee of the U.S. Senate. For 
the past 25 years I have worked in the laboratory as a physiologist 
and a pharmacologist, investigating the effects of different drugs on 
body function. In the past 4 years I have concentrated on studying 
the biological effects of marihuana products. I was also able to make 
field surveys in areas of heavv cannabis usage in North Africa. 
One of these surveys was performed under the sponsorship of the 
National Institute of Mental Health with Dr. Zeidenberg from 
Columbia University and Dr. LeFebure from the College de France 
in Paris. We visited the Rif Mountains of Morocco. \7v> were in- 
formed at that time by the Under Secretary of Health of Morocco 
that heavy marihuana users were more susceptible to tuberculosis 
which in that area constitutes a major public health problem. This 
considered opinion from one of our colleagues, along with my own 
observations which related a condition of general physical deteriora- 
tion to chronic marihuana smoking, led me to investigate the effects 
of this drug on the immunity system of man. This immunity is a 
function of white blood cells, the T-lymphocytes, which specialize 
in fighting virus infections and destroying substances foreign to the 
body such as cancer cells or tissue transplants. 

With my colleagues, Dr. J. P. Armand, Dr. N. Suciu-Foca, and 
Dr. Akira Morishima, we studied in our laboratory at the College 
of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 51 marihuana 
smokers, 16 to 35 years of age who had smoked an average of three 
cigarettes of marihuana a week for 4 years. This study was pub- 
lished in the February 1 issue 1974 of Science and I will not dupli- 
cate this study by reading it to you. I will just summarize it and then 
present to you our latest work. 

Senator Gurnet. Is it fair to say that that is a heavy usage of 
marihuana ? 


Dr. Nahas. No, not heavy usage as it has been defined in the 
Marihuana Commission report or Shafer Commission. Heavy use 
in the Marihuana Commission report refers to several cigarettes a 
day. The average amount of cigarettes smoked by these young peo- 
ple were three to four cigarettes of marihuana a week, which would 
be called rather moderate usage. 

These subjects did not use other drugs, although some of them 
also smoked tobacco and drank alcoholic beverages. We sampled 
blood from the arm vein of these subjects and isolated their lympho- 
cytes (special white blood cells). These cells were challenged with 
special substances which normally make them divide and grow. Such 
a test, the blast transformation test, is presently used to measure the 
strength or response of the immunity system of the body. We per- 
formed this test on marihuana smokers and on control subjects who 
did not use the weed, but smoked tobacco and drank alcoholic bever- 
ages. The immunity response of the marihuana smokers was 40 
percent less than that of the nonsmokers. Furthermore, their re- 
sponses was similar to that of patients with cancer, or kidney grafts — 
treated with immunosuppressants — who were tested and who pre- 
sented documented evidence of an impairment of their immunity 
system. These findings on man were verified on rhesus monkeys 
studied with Dr. Carolyn Daul in the laboratory of Dr. Robert 
Heath at Tulane University. These monkeys were made to smoke 
measured amounts of marihuana several times a week for 3 to 5 
months by a technique described by Dr. Heath this morning. We 
studied the blastogenic response of the lymphocytes of these monkeys 
and compared them to that of lymphocytes taken from monkeys who 
were not "smoked". The blastogenic response of the lymphocytes 
from the monkeys which were smoked was decreased by 52 percent. 
This was true for the two monkeys which subsequently died in this 

Mr. Martin. Could you define what you mean by blastogenic 
response ? 

Dr. Nahas. I mean that their immunity response as measured by 
this test was decreased to less than 50 percent of the controlled re- 
sponse in the monkeys which were not smoked. 

Mr. Sotjrwtne. May I ask a question? Do you conclude from this, 
Dr. Nahas, that marihuana is an immuno-suppressant ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, in the test tube, yes. One cannot, as I will dis- 
cuss later, one cannot document presently that marihuana smokers 
present a clinical decrease of their immune response which would be 
indicated by an increased incidence of virus disease, and of such 
things as cancer. This we cannot say. The only thing we can say 
is that the lymphocytes do not respond as normally as, that is to 
say, as the lymphocytes of subjects that do not smoke marihuana. 

Mr. Soubwine. It is not just a case of not responding normally. 
I understood you to say it is a 50-percent reduction. 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. in response. 

Mr. Sourwixe. It is cut in half ? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct, yes. 


Mr. Sourwine. Thank you. 

Dr. Nahas. We are continuing to study the immune response of 
these primates with Dr. Heath. 

The mechanism of this decrease in the division of lymphocytes 
was clarified in another series of experiments to be described by Dr. 
Morishima who showed that these lymphocytes from marihuana 
smokers could not increase the DNA production required for their 
proper division. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the basic chemical 
contained in the core of all our cells. DNA carries the genetic code 
and allows each daughter cell to be identical to the mother cell 
from which they derive. 

Mr. Sourwine. May I bother once more, Mr. Chairman ? 

I think it will help clarify the record. Is it true, Doctor, as I 
understand it, that there is and must be an increase in the pro- 
duction of DNA before the cell division takes place? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. This is a necessary, a prerequisite, so that what you 
are saying here is that there was an inhibition of the necessary in- 
crease which would have permitted cell division. In other words, 
this is the basis, the explanation, for the reduction in cell division? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Nahas. Similar observations were also made on lymphocytes 
sampled from subjects who did not smoke marihuana. These lym- 
phocytes were incubated in a test tube with very minute amounts of 
chemicals isolated from marihuana. These lymphocytes presented the 
same impairment in division and DNA production as those taken 
from marihuana smokers. 

Mr. Chairman, I have prepared several exhibits and I would like 
to have your permission to enter them into the record. 

Senator Gurnet. They may be admitted. 


exhibit 1 


NORMAL ( 100 %) 

Cancer 40'60 % 
Transplant Patients 50 % 
Marihuana Smokers 40 % 


Technique used to test the immunity response of man 


Dr. Nahas. Exhibit 1 is a brief description of the technique used 
to test the immunity system of a subject. Lymphocytes sampled 
from the patient are incubated or "cultured" for 72 hours in a 
test tube with a substance PHA which will cause the cells to in- 
crease the formation of DNA and then to divide. This increase is 
indicated by the growth of the cell in the diagram. 

Senator Gttrney. These exhibits are the ones that are attached to 
your prepared statement ? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct, yes. 

Senator Gurnet. They will all be admitted in the record. 

Dr. Nahas. The ability of these cells to increase the formation of 
DNA may be evaluated by the rate of uptake of radioactive thymi- 
dine. Thymidine is a precursor, a building block so to speak, essen- 
tial for the formation of DNA. Molecules of thymidine can be made 
radioactive, and the rate at which they are incorporated by the 
lymphocytes can be measured on a scintillation counter (an instru- 
ment which measures radioactivity). You will note that after the 
lymphocyte has been stimulated to grow it will produce a number of 
substances, interferon, transfer factor, and so on, which are used to 
defend our body against disease. Note that if the normal lympho- 
cytes from a group of healthy volunteers have a rate of thymidine 
incorporation of 100 percent, that of marihuana smokers is de- 
creased by 40 percent. The ability of the lymphocytes of marihuana 
smokers to produce DNA is similar to that of the lymphocytes of 
the cells sampled from cancer patients. 
























1195 <0.00O5 









480 <0.0005 




< 0.0005 




2533 <0.0005 








2594 <0.0005 
















Uptake of H -delta -9-THC 

by human lymphocytes 

(in CPM) 








Without PHA 


















With PHA 

517 ±39 
903 ±76 
872 ± 32 
881 ±22 
822 ± 114 
790 ± III 


exhibit 4 

C 2 H 5 OH 


- 6 

io" 5 io" 4 io" 3 


- 2 

Inhibitory effects of the cannabinoids (marihuana products) 
delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabinol (CBN), 
cannabidiol (CBD) on PHA induced lymphocyte transforma- 
tion as measured by H thymidine incorporation after three 
days of culture. This effect is compared to that of aspirin, 
caffeine and ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH). All experiments 
were done in triplicate cultures. The counts per minute 
(CPM) given are the average count of 4 to 5 parallel cultures 
± standard error. Inhibition of lymphocyte transformation was 
calculated in reference to the CPM of the control culture. 
The dotted line represents % of thymidine uptake of unstim- 
ulated cells. A concentration of 1 (f marihuana products 
(THC, CBD, CBN) would correspond to 30 mg, which 
would be the average amount contained in a 1 gram mari- 
huana cigarette. A concentration of 1 alcohol would 
correspond to 5gm, the amount contained in a glass of wine. 


Exhibit 2 details our results as they are actually measured by the 
scintillation counter, with the figures that we obtained from the 
counter. In these experiments two different substances were used 
to stimulate the lymphocytes into growing and dividing. The PHA 
and the MLC test. "Roth gave similar results. 

Exhibit 3 summarizes an experiment which indicates that one 
of the most active substances in marihuana. THC. does penetrate 
into the lymphocytes rather rapidly. This experiment was per- 
formed with radioactive THC which was incubated with the lym- 
phocytes. After 15 minutes THC has reached a plateau in the cell. 

Exhibit 4 illustrates our latest series of experiments which were 
performed with Dr. Hsu and Dr. DeSoize. In these experiments, 
lymphocytes taken from subjects who did not smoke marihuana 
were incubated with some of the chemical substances isolated from 
marihuana, THC, CBD, CBN, compounds which were given to us 
by the National Institute of Mental Health. Of these substances 
onlv THC is "psychoactive", impairs psychomotor performance, 
and is considered the major biologically active substance of mari- 
huana. In this experiment it is made clear that not only is THC 
immuno-suppressive but that also the two nonactive substances in 
marihuana, CBN and CBD have a similar effect. As a matter of 
fact, it seems that these nonactive substances have a greater potency 
to inhibit DNA formation in the lymphocytes than does THC. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record, might 
I inquire? You used the phrase nonactive substances. You really 
mean substances formerly deemed to be nonactive and you now 
have proved they are active, is that correct ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. Such an experiment comes as no surprise to 
Dr. Paton, who has repeatedly emphasized that THC was only one 
of the many substances in marihuana to change cellular function. 
Note that the potency of these cannabis products to impair the pro- 
duction of DNA by lymphocytes is about 50 times greater than 
that of aspirin and caffeine, and note also that it takes concentra- 
tions^ 10,000 times greater for alcohol (C2H50H). And even with 
sufficient concentrations 10,000 times greater there is no effect on 
cell division. Therefore, as far as DNA formation and cell di- 
vision is concerned alcohol has very little effect in this experiment 
as already mentioned by Dr. Paton. 

Senator Gurnet. Doctor, at this point for the sake of the record, 
would you define what the chemical substance CBD, and CBN are? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. CBN is cannabinol and CBD is cannabidiol. 
These two substances are present in the leaves and flowering tops of 
cannabis, and in the so-called low qualitv "grass" the concentration 
of CBN is quite high while that of THC is low. And it is interest- 
ing to note that insofar as DNA production is concerned, even 
some people who smoke low grade marihuana might still impair 
their lymphocytes. Now, on this chart 

Mr. Sourwine. Forgive me, please, I have become confused and 
if I may be permitted, may I ask two questions? You have said 
that the potency of these cannabis products to impair the produc- 
tion of DNA by lymphocytes is 50 times greater than that of aspirin 
and caffeine. In other words, it takes 50 times as much aspirin or 
caffeine as it does THC to cause the impairment. And then you 


say it takes concentrations 10,000 times greater for alcohol to have 
an effect. 

So that we can understand this, how much alcohol is involved m 
a concentration 10,000 times greater than the amount of cannabis 
which will impair the production of DNA by lymphocytes ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, such concentrations are never reached in the 
bloodstream of man, they would amount to 5 percent of alcohol. The 
highest concentration is, I think, 1 percent — no, the concentration 
of alcohol which is associated with intoxication is 50 milligrams per- 
cent. And I say that the concentration we use in this experiment is in 
excess of 500 milligram percent. So 10 times more than what is con- 
sidered a state of intoxication. 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean in order to have this kind of an effect 
on the formation of DNA by the lymphocytes it would take a con- 
centration of alcohol in the blood of 50 percent? 

Dr. Nahas. No, 500 milligrams percent that is 500 milligrams of 
alcohol in 100 milliliters, or y 10 th of a liter of blood. 

Mr. Sourwine. 500 milligrams percent ? 

Dr. Nahas. 500 milligrams percent or more. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would inhibit it ? 

Dr. Nahas. This would result in the death of the subject.^ 

Mr. Sourwine. The percent of cannabis products which will in- 
hibit it must be almost infinitesimal, 1/10,000's of that, is that right? 

Dr. Nahas. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. A mere trace in the blood. 

Dr. Nahas. Well, more than a trace, something which can be 

Mr. Martin. How many milligrams would be involved? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, to give you an idea, a marihuana cigarette, con- 
tains an amount of cannabinoids — cannabis products — correspond- 
ing to 10 to the minus 4 — about 30 milligrams. 

Senator Gurnet. We are talking about exhibit 4 ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. State that. 

Dr. Nahas. 30 milligrams of cannabis products — of THC and other 
marihuana constituents. 

Mr. Sourwine. You cannot translate milligrams into the blood. If 
it takes 5 percent alcohol in the blood to cause this damage and 
1/10,000's amount of that, then 5/10.000's of cannabis products must 
be enough in the blood to cause the damage, is that right ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, Mr. Chairman, these experiments are experi- 
ments which are made in vitro, in the test tube. 

Mr. Sourwine. I am not challenging you, sir, I am only seeking 
light. We have these figures here, 50 times, 10,000 times, and I am 
trying to relate them. 

Dr. Nahas. Well, it is easy to relate them in the test tube because 
the volume there is small and exact concentration of these substances 
can be measured. However, in the body, especially for cannabis 
products, it is very difficult to measure the exact amount which is at 
any time in the plasma. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then, your 10,000 times is not a direct relationship 
to the percentage needed in the blood. Your 10,000 times is related 
to the actual amount in concentrated form in the test tube? 


Dr. Nahas. That is right, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right. I have no further questions, Mr. 

Senator Gtjrney. Proceed. 

Dr. Nahas. But what I want to say is that the concentration of 
THC. CBD. and CBN which in the test tube inhibits DNA forma- 
tion, is reached in the plasma of man, if you refer yourself to the 
studies, to the few studies, where plasma concentrations of canna- 
binoids are available. 

Now, it would, therefore, appear that lymphocyte production of 
DNA as measured by the incorporation of 3 H thymidine is impaired 
by marihuana products. The ability of delta-9 THC and of other 
cannabinoids to limit 3 H thymidine incorporation by lymphocytes 
in cell culture, although not previously described, is consistent with 
some of the characteristics of these compounds which are not soluble 
in water and accumulate in fat. The reduced incorporation of 3 H 
thymidine after exposure of the lymphoctyes to concentration of 
cannabinoids which may be reached during chronic cannabis con- 
sumption could decrease body defenses as claimed by some of our 
colleagues in North Africa. Such an outcome would be damaging 
when it is desirable that these defense mechanisms remain intact as 
in the cases of cancer and other poorly understood diseases. The 
clinical significance of these observations can only be assessed by 
what are called "epidemiological investigations". These investiga- 
tions, patterned after the "Framingham studies" of tobacco smokers, 
are exceedingly expensive; they would have to be carried out on a 
large population of marihuana smokers to be studied year after year 
for several decades. In this investigation an appraisal of the immune 
response of the marihuana user should be systematically studied so 
as to better appreciate the development of the many different patho- 
logical conditions in which the immune system plays an important 

However, these observations, taken in the general context of the 
damaging effect of marihuana on the DNA of dividing cells, are 
indicative that long-term marihuana usage by a significant fraction 
of the American population would constitute a major public health 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. 

As I understand it then, not being a scientist, I am not sure I 
understood what all these figures mean, but I think I understand 
what you are saying, that is, the use of marihuana severely reduces 
the user's, a user's resistance to disease in sickness, is that another 
word for it ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, that is what it might do in the long run. Actually, 
what we have shown is that the use of marihuana decreases the 
ability of the cells to fulfill their function of dividing rapidly. The 
lymphocytes are cells which have to divide rapidly whenever the body 
is attacked by a virus, for instance. In marihuana smokers we found 
that these lymphocytes do not divide as rapidly as well as those 
sampled from people who did not smoke marihuana. But we have 
not made an epidemiological study which would be required to corre- 
late a higher incidence of all types of disease with length of the 


marihuana smoking, similar to those which have been done with 
tobacco smokers. 

It is only in the past 12 years that tobacco smoking has been cor- 
related with cancer, heart disease and other unhealthy conditions. 
Before that there was no physical evidence that such a correlation 
existed, although it did exist in fact. 

Senator Gurnet. But the inference is that use of marihuana makes 
people more susceptible to illnesses without defining all the various 
illnesses ? 

Dr. Nahas. That is an inference which only further studies would 
be able to determine. 

Senator Gurnet. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. In the study just reported you collaborated with 
three senior scientists of the 'College of Physicians and Surgeons of 
Columbia University. We are going to introduce Dr. Morishima, who 
was one of your collaborators. Could you tell us something briefly 
about the qualifications of your other two collaborators? 

Dr. Nahas. Dr. Suciu-Foca is an immunologist and is chief of the 
Laboratory of Clinical Immunology of the College of Physicians 
and Surgeons. She has a world-known reputation, especially in the 
techniques that we used and which she has perfected. 

Dr. Jean Pierre Armand is also an immunologist and he is associ- 
ate director in the Cancer Institute of the University of Toulouse in 

Mr. Martin. So these were all eminently qualified scientists who 
worked with you ? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. Such a study required many different disciplines 
and in order for these studies to be valid one has. to work in conjunc- 
tion with very competent people in different specialties. 

Mr. Martin. In order to clarify a point about which I feel there 
may have been some misunderstanding, I would like to suggest the 
advantage of trying to transfer from percentages to quantities. 
Would it be roughly accurate that in order to get intoxicated on 
whiskey you need 10 to 15 ounces ? 

Dr. Nahas. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Martin. Ten to 15 ounces, a third to half a bottle to get intoxi- 
cated with whiskey 

Dr. Nahas. Yes 

Mr. Martin [continuing]. Roughly. 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Or 8 to 15 ounces. 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Certainly, 1 ounce would not do it. 

How much THC do you need to get yourself stoned? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, in* terms of ounces a very small percent of an 
ounce, I would say 10 milligrams. 

Mr. Martin. Ten milligrams. 

Dr. Nahas. That is about one thousandth of an ounce. 

Mr. Martin. About one thousandth of an ounce? 

Dr. Nahas. About one thousandth of an ounce, I would say. 

Mr. Martin. So that 1 ounce of pure THC would be enough 

Dr. Nahas. One thousandth of an ounce, I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Martin. One thousandth of an ounce? 


Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. So that 1 ounce of pure THC would be enough for 
1000 intoxications. We are talking about two substances 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin [continuing]. Whose capacity for intoxicating people 
is really poles apart. I mean, you need a tiny, tiny amount in one 
case and a fairly large amount in the other case ? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. With great respect, in intoxication a high is not 
necessarily the same thing as the inhibition against production or 
the formation of DNA you testified about earlier. A man may get 
drunk on alcohol without any inhibition of the formation of DNA? 

Dr. Nahas. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. I mean, as I understand it, he cannot get a high on 
pot without some measure of such inhibition ? 

Dr. Nahas. Without, well, over a period of time, that is true, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right. 

Dr. Nahas. You can take a drink every evening and not impair 
your DNA, that is correct. But you cannot smoke a marihuana cig- 
arette every day and not run the risk of impairing DNA in some 
of your dividing cells. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Nahas. 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. I believe you have stated that your research raised 
the possibility of serious genetic damage if the cannabis epidemic 
remains unchecked. Would you like to comment on that, or would 
you like to leave that for Dr. Morishima? 

Dr. Nahas. I think Dr. Morishima is much more competent than I 
in that. 

Mr. Martin. Does the amount of cannabis being consumed in the 
United States today — that is, based on rough calculations which, in 
turn, are based on what we know about the quantities interdicted by 
the Federal authorities — does the amount being used justify the 
term "epidemic"? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, certainly, it does since I think you calculated 
that about 50 cigarettes containing 10 milligrams THC have been con- 
sumed in 1973 by every single citizen of the United States, including 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean a quantity equal to 50 cigarettes per per- 
son has been consumed? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, upon that basis it certainly is an epidemic. 

Mr. Sourwine. It is a different thing from saying that everybody 
in the country has consumed 50 marihuana cigarettes. 

Dr. Nahas. I agree. 

Mr. Martin. Point conceded. You have in recent years, Dr. Nahas, 
attended a number of national and international conferences on 
cannabis research? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Eoughly, how many would you say you have at- 
tended ? 

Dr. Nahas. Four or five, maybe a half-dozen. There have been 


Mr. Martin. Has there been any discernible trends at these con- 
ferences? Would you be prepared to venture an estimate on the 
percentage of the scientists at these conferences who lean toward the 
conclusion that marihuana is relatively harmless and the percentage 
whose findings have convinced them that it is a very dangerous 
drug ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, I think Dr. Paton did answer this question in 
a very appropriate fashion and I would certainly agree with what 
he said. You see, the scientist is essentially a human being who is 
swayed by public opinion like any other human being. Before 1960 
the majority of scientists had all agreed marihuana was dangerous, 
very much so, and then came this great new wave of marihuana use 
and public opinion did change and then in some respect it did in- 
fluence the opinion of the scientists, because the facts did not. We 
were told 4 or 5 years ago that marihuana was harmless but there 
Avas no hard fact to support this contention, and there was a very 
strong body of historical evidence indicating that it was very harm- 
ful. But many people were swayed by this new fashion. So I think 
that the opinion of scientists is very much influenced by the fashion 
in which they live. Your question is difficult to answer. 

Mr. Martin. When we talk about historical evidence, what you 
are saying in effect is that over the centuries wise men in many 
countries have been very critical of cannabis, and have warned 
against its use, even though they did not have the advantage of 
modern scientific technology? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. This was based on empirical observations? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes, and they still do. I am sure in the countries which 
I visited, in Morocco and elsewhere, they will never find by them- 
selves evidence for the physical damage that cannabis has produced 
in their population because they do not have the tools to do it. But 
still they believe that it is most harmful. 

Mr. Martin. What you are saying, if I understand your remark, 
Dr. Nahas, is that the mere fact that Shakespeare did not have a 
degree in psychology from Harvard does not mean that Shakespeare 
was ignorant of human psychology? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. Coming closer to the present, it is accurate that an 
international scientific conference convened in 1924 under the aus- 
pices of the League of Nations, voted unanimousy to list cannabis 
as a dangerous substance and they voted to cooperate with each 
other in seeking to eradicate it? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Did the scientists who attended this conference have 
the hard scientific evidence that we have today? 

Dr. Nahas. None at all. As a matter of fact, this conference had to 
be prolonged because some of the officials from the west who attended 
the conference asked the Egyptian delegate to present them with 
hard facts indicating that marihuana was harmful and he could not 
find any. 

Mr. Martin. In short, their vote was based primarily on these 
centuries of empirical observations to which you referred earlier? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct. 


Mr. Martin. You do not feel they were wrong in voting as they 
did, despite the lack of hard scientific evidence? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. If the United States ever legalized marihuana, what 
is your judgment of the effect this would have in the United States 
and internationally ? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, it is difficult to predict what would happen. I 
think that Dr. Bejerot will tomorrow discuss this problem and he 
is pretty well qualified for it. 

I can just convey to you a feeling, impressions and opinions of 
the Public Health officials in the North African countries I visited. 
These public officials are convinced that marihuana usage is harm- 
ful to their people and to the society, to the social structure in which 
they live. They want the help of the United States to give them 
funds in order to produce substitute cash crops instead of marihuana, 
which constitutes the only cash crop in some areas of Morocco. So 
when you inform these officials that there is a probability or possi- 
bility that marihuana might be legalized in the United States, and 
you say that it could be made commercially available, they look at 
you with great incredulity. 

Mr. Martin. A final question. Has your research been funded by 
any Government agency or is it privately funded? 

Dr. Nahas. It is privately funded. 1 

Mr. Martin. You have obtained no Government funds? 

Dr. Nahas. Until now I have not obtained any Government funds, 
and it is a very expensive venture. 

Mr. Martin. Did you apply for Government funds? 

Dr. Nahas. I did. 

Mr. Martin. Your application was apparently rejected? 

Dr. Nahas. But it is being now reconsidered. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you. 

Dr. Nahas. It was rejected, yes. 

Mr. Martin. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. When did vou first apply for Government funds, 

Dr. Nahas. I first applied last October when I had assembled a 
body of knowledge sufficient to indicate that there was a certain area 
in my research where interesting and fruitful information could be 

Senator Gurnet. And this application is still pending? 

Dr. Nahas. We are reapplying. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have two questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Doctor, at the conclusion of your statement you said that your 
observations taken in the general context of the damaging effect of 
marihuana on the DNA of dividing cells are indicative that long- 
term marihuana usage by a significant fraction of the American 
population would constitute a major public health problem. 

Would you tell us what you consider to be a significant fraction? 
5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent? 

1 Mostly from a gift from Mr. Henri G. Doll and one from the Phillipe Foundation. 


Dr. Nahas. No, I said that it would be, it might be a small per- 
centage. I think that in a population at large there is only a relatively 
small percentage, let us say, to be kind, 12 percent, which is active, 
creative, and which is responsible for much of the creativity in the 
society. If just a small percentage of this 12 percent, let us say, 
2 or 3 percent falls off this would create a very serious problem 

Mr. Sourwine. Well now, when you use a general figure like "sig- 
nificant percentage" you are talking about a percentage of the whole 
population, not a percentage of some elite group, are you not? 

Dr. Nahas. That is correct, But I am 

Mr. Sourwine. What percentage of the whole population consti- 
tutes a significant fraction of the population, in your opinion? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, a fraction which is statistically significant, so 
this may not be very high, I would say it is 5 or 10 percent. 

Mr. Sourwine. Well, how many, what percentage of the American 
population are now using marihuana ? 

Dr. Nahas. The figures are, I think, between 10 and 15 percent, 

Mr. Sourwine. Then, we are now in a situation in which mari- 
huana constitutes a maior public health problem, is that right? 

Dr. Nahas. I think it does; well, this is my personal opinion. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is all I am asking for. 

Dr. Nahas. If marihuana will continue to be consumed in the 
United States at the rate at which it was consumed in 1973 on the 
basis of the figures which were given to us, I think that in 10 years 
it will be a major public health problem, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are a very careful man in your statements, sir, 
which I am sure is the proper scientific attitude, and I mean no 
offense by this question. You have told us that in order to have 
appropriate and normal resistance to disease, lymphocytes must 
divide quite rapidly in case of an invasion. You have told us that the 
use of marihuana inhibits this division by approximately 50 percent 
through the inhibition of the production of the deoxyribonucleic acid, 
am I correct so far? 

Dr. Nahas. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then, you declined to make a judgment that this 
meant that the use of marihuana reduced the resistance of the user to 
disease, Is that not a little bit like saying if you introduce into the 
blood a noncoagulating factor to the extent that the blood will seep 
through the tissues, there is still no assurance that the man is going 
to bleed? 

Dr. Nahas. Well, I have to keep toeing the scientific line which says 
that as long as there is no evidence you cannot conclude. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right, sir, I have no more questions. 

Senator Gurnet. It is my understanding, just to complete the last 
line of questioning, that there have not been that, there has not been 
that much experimentation to actually prove that marihuana, the use 
of marihuana prevents resistance to certain diseases because it has not 
been experimented, is that not what you are saying? 

Dr. Nahas. There have not been enough actual observations. But 
if I were to bet personally, I would certainly bet that the incidence 
of disease in chronic marihuana smokers would be much greater than 
in those who do not smoke marihuana. I would make that hypothesis, 
I would bet on it. 


Mr. Sourwixe. Thank you, Doctor. 

I understand our next witness is Dr. Morishima. Doctor, will you 
identify yourself for the record, please? 


Dr. Morishima. I am an associate professor of the department of 
pediatrics of the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia 
University. I am the chief of the division of pediatric endocrine 
service at Babies Hospital. 

Senator Gtjrxet. Perhaps if you do not mind, I could ask some 
questions which will start us in at the beginning and establish your 
qualifications, Doctor. 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. You were born in Tokyo in 1930 ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. You are currently a citizen of the U.S. ? 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, I am. 

Senator Gurxey. And you received your medical degree from the 
School of Medicine, Keio University in Tokyo in 1954 ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. And you subsequently received a Ph. D. in medi- 
cine from Keio University for your work in the field of cytogenetics. 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurxey. How would you define cytogenetics? 

Dr. Morishima. It is a discipline in which genetics of cells are 

Senator Gurxey. And you have been associated with Columbia 
University from 1956 to the present time — apart from a 2-year stint, 
from 1966 to 1968 as assistant professor of pediatrics at the Univer- 
sity of California in San Francisco ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. And you have served as pediatrician or pediatric 
consultant at a number of major New York hospitals? 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, I do. 

Senator Gurxey. And you have for several years been a member of 
the endocrine disease advisory committee of the New York City 
Department of Health?. 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, I am. 

Senator Gurxey. And you are the author or coauthor of 32 scien- 
tific papers, with a heavy emphasis in the field of cytogenetic 
research ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. Is it accurate to say you are basically a geneticist? 

Dr. Morishima. Yes, who specializes in the subdivision of cell 
genetics, if you will. 

Senator Gurxey. Very well. Will you proceed with your statement, 

Dr. Morishima. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be invited to 
testify as a scientific witness before this distinguished committee. 

During the past few years, I have been examining the cytogenetic 
changes in heroin addicts. My interest in cannabis originally stemmed 
from this study. The vast majority of heroin addicts we were able 

33-371 O - 74 - 9 


to study smoked marihuana, at least on occasions, and therefore it 
became important to examine separately the effects of marihuana 
smoking. It is of interest that the preliminary observation on mari- 
huana smokers suggests that some cytogenetic changes in these 
subjects are dissimilar to those found in heroin addicts. 

We obtained lymphocytes from peripheral blood of heavy mari- 
huana smokers — at least once per week for minimum of 1 year — and 
cultured the cells in vitro for 72 hours, stimulated by phytohemag- 
glutinin, PHA. At the end of this culture period, cells were exposed 
to colchicine and a hypotonic solution, then, were fixed, all in a 
rigidly prescribed manner. This method is a standard technique used 
for examination of human chromosomes, and is commonly employed 
in diagnosis of diseases caused by chromosomal aberrations. The 
method is very similar to that used for detection of chromosomal 
breakages in marihuana smokers by Dr. Stenchever l and in users of 
lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD, by Dr. Cohen 8 and his associates 
in 1967. 

When the specimens of three marihuana smokers were compared 
with those of age and sex matched nonsmokers, the mitotic index, or 
the proportion of those cells in process of cell division, was noted to 
be only 2.3 percent in marihuana users, compared with 5.9 percent for 
the controls. Although the significance of this difference was not clear 
due to the small number of subjects studied, it suggested that activity 
of cell division may be decreased in marihuana smokers. 

However, in the marihuana samples, we noted that a large propor- 
tion of metaphase nuclei contained a significantly decreased number 
of chromosomes than the normal human complement of 46 chromo- 
somes. Metaphase is a brief stage of cell division during which each 
chromosome is clearly visible. 

[The table follows :] 


Number of 




Number of 



Marihuana smokers 3 



60, 173 

Controls - 3 



Number of 


cells i 


Total cells 

Marihuana smokers - - --- 3 




i More than 10 grains per cell. 

Mr. Chairman, I have prepared several figures. I should like to 
refer to Exhibit 1. 

Senator Gtjrney. These will all be admitted in the record. 

1 Stenchever M. A. ; Kunysz, T. J., and Allen, M. A. "Chromosome Breakage In Users 
of Marihuana." Am. J. Obs. Gyn., 118 : 106, 1974. 

2 Cohen, M. M. ; Marinello, M. J., and Back, N. "Chromosomal Damage in Human 
Leukocytes Induced by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide." Science, 155 : 1417, 1967. 


* t *^* 


* >a % 


Dr. Morishima. In exhibit 1 a normal metaphase cell with 46 
chromosomes is shown in the left upper corner. Cells with 38, 24, 11, 
and 8 chromosomes, respectively, are shown in the remainder of this 

Mr. Sotjrwine. What is the significance of a cell with 34 or 11 or 8 
chromosomes ? 

Dr. Morishima. These are abnormal cells which are seen only in a 
very small percentage among the normal controls. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Will they take part in reproduction ? 

Dr. Morishima. They probably will, at least for one or two cell 
generations but after that I have no evidence to support whether or 
not they can or cannot. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Thank you. 

Dr. Morishima. In exhibit 2, I have summarized the study. 

In marihuana smokers, 30.6 percent of the cells examined had 5 to 30 
chromosomes, whereas only 7 percent of cells were found to have such 
a chromosomal complement in the control group. The small percent- 
age of abnormal cells in normal individuals is thought to arise during 
the process of preparing the slides, and is considered a technical 
artifact. However, in marihuana smokers, the incidence of metaphase 
cells missing a large number of chromosomes was over fourfold 
greater than that in controls. This incidence was so high that I have 
not encountered a comparable phenomenon m any other clinical 
situations in 15 years of experience in cytogenetics. Judging from 
the microscopic findings, there were reasons to believe that this 
observation could not be explained merely on the basis of technically 
induced artifacts. Although this study included only a few patients, 
and is still incomplete due to lack of funds, I believe that the data 
are sufficient to suggest that marihuana smoking results in severe 






1 "4 

5-10 1 1-20 

21-30 over 30 


3.17 3.17 




3.02 2.26 





1 00 00 

1 00 




2.40 181 









8.33 9.84 

2 1.96 


2.1 1 

7.74 7.74 


5 7.04 



4.26 1 .47 





6.78 6.35 









disruption of the normal process by which chromosomes segregate 
into succeeding generations of cells, at least when cultured in vitro. 

Dr. Nahas has already mentioned the decreased ability of lympho- 
cytes obtained from marihuana smokers to synthesize DNA in culture. 
In this regard, I should like to mention a study which confirmed his 
observation. Tritiated thymidine, which is a radioactive precursor of 
DNA, was added to the culture medium of lymphocytes for 50 hours 
in this experiment. After washing the cells to remove any radioactive 
thymidine not already incorporated into the cells, the specimens were 
placed on slides. Photographic films were then placed in contact with 
the cells so that the incorporated radioactivity could be observed by 
use of a microscope — autoradiograph. In marihuana smokers only 
10.4 percent of all cells were found to have incorporated the tritiated 
thymidine, in contrast to 29.8 percent for the nonsmokers. This ob- 
servation suggests that a larger proportion of lymphocytes of mari- 
huana smokers is incapable of cellular reproduction in vitro. 1 

It is of interest that the apparent decrease in mitotic index and di- 
minished DNA synthesis of the lympocytes of marihuana users is 
very different from the cytogenetic findings obtained in heroin 

As summarized in the third exhibit, the mean mitotic index of 
lymphocytes obtained from heroin addicts was 11.8 percent, signifi- 
cantly greater than that of controls, with a mean index of 6.6 percent. 
Since most of the addicts were also users of marihuana, it may be 
speculated that their mitotic index would have been even greater if 
they had not smoked marihuana. 

Senator Gtjrney. I wonder, so we can understand as laymen now 
perhaps you had better say for the record, Doctor, what do you mean 
by in vitro and what do you mean by in vivo ? 

Dr. Morishima. Mr. Chairman, in vitro here I refer to in-test-tube 
situation. In vivo, I mean, in life. 

Senator Gurnet. Life. 

Dr. Morishima. May I proceed ? 

Senator Gurnet. Yes. 

Dr. Morishima. Since lymphocytes constitute an essential compo- 
nent of cellular immunity and chromosomes are basic units of in- 
heritance at the cellular level, it seems logical to anticipate potential 
danger in immune defense system, development of cancer, germ cell 
production, genetic mutation and birth defects. Unfortunately, little 
is known of the effects of cannabis in these areas. Many of these can 
be examined systematically and rapidly utilizing the presently avail- 
able technology. On the other hand, it is prudent to keep in mind 
possibilities of long-term effects which can be studied only by long- 
range epidemiological investigations. It was only 2 years ago that 
diethylstilbesterol, once a commonly prescribed female hormone, was 
implicated in vaginal cancer of female offspring of mothers who were 
treated with this agent some 15 to 20 years before. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In exhibit 4, the results of the in vitro study is shown. 

When lymphocytes obtained from 11 normal subjects were exposed 
to morphine sulfate of various concentrations in culture, a complete 

1 Nahas, G. G. ; Suciu-Foca, N. ; Armand, J. P. and Morishima, A. "Inhibition of 
Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marihuana Smokers." Science 183 : 419, 1974. 


inhibition of DNA synthesis occurred at 1.32 X10" 1 mM. This concen- 
tration is estimated to be about 100 times the concentration found in 
the blood of fatalities from acute overdoes of morphine. At concen- 
tration of 1.32 X10~ 7 mM an enhancement of DNA synthesis was ob- 
served. This concentration is approximately 1/1000 of the blood con- 
centration of fatalities. Thus, in contrast to cannabis, derivatives of 
opium alkaloids appear to stimulate DNA synthesis and cell division 
of lymphocytes in culture at an appropriate concentration. 1 

Considering the various studies of Drs. Stenchever, Leuchten- 
berger 2 and Nahas together with the data presented, I believe that 
we can conclude that there is an increasing body of evidences to sug- 
gest that cannabis can affect the process of cell multiplication and 
induce profound cytogenetic changes. While these in vitro studies do 
not directly indicate adverse effects in vivo, they do implicate poten- 
tial health hazards. 


















INDEX (%) 


INDEX (%) 






20.25 '" 







21 14 

1 6.65 '"- 














1 2,770 






1 0,000 




1 7.83 


1 0,000 













6.39i 0.970B.E-)% 




1 1.82 t I.8271SZ J% 

1 Milstein, M. ; Morishima. A. ; Cohen, M. I. and Litt, I. F. Effects of Opium Alka- 
loids on Mitosis and DNA Synthesis. Ped. Res. 8: 118, 1974 (Abstract). 

3 Luctenberger, C. : Leuchtenberger, R. and Schneider, A. Effects of Marihuana and 
Tobacco Smoker on Human Lung Physiology. Nature, 241 : 137, 1973. 



O T- 

I.32XIO-' 1.32X10-3 I32XI0 - * I.32XI0 -6 I.32X 1 0~ 6 I32XI0 -7 I.32XI0 -8 I.32X 1 0" 9 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. I guess I should have per- 
haps asked each of the panelists about this but let me direct a ques- 
tion to you. I take it, really, there has not been that much study on 
the effects of marihuana, is that true? 

Dr. Morishima. Not in the chromosomal level, as far as I know. 
There is Dr. Stenchever's work, the one which came out from the 
Jamaica study and the one I presented to you just about summarize 
the current knowledge. 

Senator Gukney. Is it true — and I am asking this question also of 
the other panel members in the areas they have been investigating- — 
there really has not been much research done on marihuana and its 

For the record, I will say each of the panelists shook their heads 
in the affirmative — no, there has not been that much research done. 

Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Martin. Just a few questions. I would like to ask Dr. Mori- 
shima to respond to the questions as briefly as possible in the interest 
of time, and I would like to ask the two remaining witnesses when 
they testify if they will perhaps abbreviate their prepared remarks 
somewhat, and also to make their replies to questions as brief as pos- 
sible so that we can wind up the hearing this afternoon. 

Dr. Morishima, if I understood you correctly, what brought you 
together with Dr. Nahas and his research on marihuana, in which you 


joined him, was your earlier studies on the cytogenetic effects of 
heroin ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Martin. I would like to ask you to amplify on your closing 
statement in which you mention the effect of diethystilbesterol. You 
said, if I understood you, to be prudent we must keep in mind the 
possibilities about the long-term effects — about which we will only 
learn from long-range investigations in the future. Do you mean that 
the effects may not be noticeable in this generation or perhaps for 
another generation ? 

Dr. Morishima. That is precisely what I mean in this statement, 
sir. For example, when diethystilbesterol was used during the preg- 
nancy of the mother who was carrying the female offspring, the effect 
was not seen in the mother at all. She never expressed adverse effect, 
and it was only when the female offspring reached beyond the puberal 
age, cancer of the vagina was discovered and diethystilbesterol was 
then implicated in production of this cancer. So I believe that similar 
kinds of situations can occur in the marihuana usage. Particularly I 
am concerned with the fact that marihuana seems to accumulate in 
the gonads, that is, ovaries and the testicular tissue. And I am par- 
ticularly concerned about the ovaries rather than the sperms because 
the ovaries contain a finite number of eggs at the time of female 
birth. They do not increase, they die progressively. They are endowed 
with a definite number of eggs which cannot be reproduced. So if a 
damage is done one can shed those damaged cells year after year 
after puberty. 

Mr. Martin. You said that your personal research in other areas 
tended to supplement and confirm the research which you have con- 
ducted jointly with Dr. Nahas. Who funded this personal research to 
which you referred ? Were you able to find Government support for 
your work, or foundation support, or private support? 

Dr. Morishima. I am totally unfunded in terms of marihuana re- 
search at the moment. However, I do have a contract with the city of 
New York to investigate cytogenic changes in heroin addicts and, 
therefore, I am allowed under the agreement to undertake certain 
pilot studies which are relevant to the heroin addiction. 

Mr. Martin. Have you applied — submitted an application — for re- 
search support? 

Dr. Morishima. I applied to NIH in conjunction with Dr. Nahas. 
Mr. Martin. And it was this application which was turned down 
and is apparently now being considered? 
Dr. Nahas. Resubmitted. 

Mr. Martin. Resubmitted. Thank you very much. I have no further 
questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sourwine. Just one, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Morishima, in telling us about the effect of heroin and other 
opium alkaloid derivatives upon DNA synthesis preceding cell divi- 
sion, you brought into my mind this understanding and I want to ask 
you if it is correct. Heroin and marihuana differ greatly, perhaps 
most greatly in the fact that heroin and other opium alkaloid deriva- 
tives can totally inhibit the cell division — a bad effect — in heavy con- 
centrations but may actually increase it or stimulate it — a good effect — 


in sufficiently small concentrations, whereas there is no quantity of 
marihuana that does any good, all of it does harm ? 

Dr. Morishima. Counsel, I do not want to imply increased DNA 
synthesis, per se, is good. If one takes that position we must glorify 
leukemia as a good disease and, therefore, being variations from the 
normality to me is bad either way. All I am saying is that with heroin 
there is an increase in DNA synthesis, and in marihuana there is a 
decrease. In test tube situation, at least, if you give enough you can 
kill off the cells with the morphine sulfate, which is not a surprise. 
You can kill cells with almost anything ; if you give high enough con- 
centration, sugar will do it, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. I thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Dr. Morishima. 

Our next witness is Dr. Robert Kolodny. 

Dr. Kolodny, would you identify yourself for the record? 


Dr. Kolodny. I am Dr. Robert C. Kolodny of the Reproductive 
Biology Research Foundation in St. Louis, Mo. 

Senator Gurney. Let me ask just a few questions on your qualifi- 
cations, Doctor. I understand you received your medical degree in 
1969 from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. 
Louis ? 

Dr. Kolodny. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. And you served, you have served since 1973, as 
director of the endocrine research section of the Reproductive Biology 
Research Foundation in St. Louis? 

Dr. Kolodny. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. And you have also served since last year as in- 
structor in the department of medicine of the Washington University 
School of Medicine? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. You are a captain in the U.S. Army Medical 
Corps Reserve? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And you are the author of 13 scientific papers? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Will you proceed with your statement ? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honor to testify as a scientific wit- 
ness before this committee in an area of current controversy. I have 
been asked to describe recent research that my colleagues and I have 
done on the physical effects of cannabis use. I want to stress that Dr. 
Gelson Toro, a biochemist and director of our laboratories, and Dr. 
William H. Masters, the director of the Reproductive Biology Re- 
search Foundation, have been instrumental in the planning, perform- 
ance, and analysis of these studies. My testimony today reflects the 
views of these eminent scientists, in addition to my own thinking. I 
would also like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Mr. Rob- 
ert M. Kolodner, a fourth-year medical student from Yale Univer- 
sity, who participated in the first phase of our investigations. 


Kesearch in medicine proceeds along certain basic lines of endeavor 
when any drug is being considered. A thorough understanding of 
drug effects is initially obtained through animal experimentation, 
with particular attention to identifying and devising means to mini- 
mize toxic effects of the compound being tested. The world has 
learned, through unfortunate experience, the price of inadequate 
studies in this phase, specifically with regard to drug effects in preg- 
nancy. Animal safety is not a panacea for human usage, however, 
since the consequences of use of any drug by the human may be 
considerably different from the animal model. 

Continuing to speak in broad terms, human drug studies are meth- 
odologically limited in many ways. Ethical considerations must be 
given the highest possible priority by the scientist; therefore, exper- 
imental plans that might be ideal from a scientific viewpoint— that 
is to say, plans that may allow the fullest answer of the particular 
question being examined — must often be discarded in favor of a less 
precise method. Time limitations are also relevant to this discussion, 
because the question of safety of drug use — and I emphasize that I 
am speaking of any drug, including aspirin — cannot accurately and 
fully be assessed for many decades, particularly when we consider 
the reproductive consequences a drug may have. In addition to the 
above, we must realize that a multiplicity of factors may influence the 
very areas we wish to evaluate — thus, studies of aspirin's effects on 
weight gain would be influenced by intercurrent illness, other drugs 
employed — both for their intrinsic effects and for how they might 
interact with aspirin — diet, social pressures, and physical activity, to 
name just a few. 

For a valid scientific conclusion about drug effects, we must ques- 
tion the design of an evaluating study, particularly in light of how 
well controlled the study was ; that is to say, how carefully have the 
investigators worked to insure that what they are observing are ac- 
tual effects of the drug in question, and not effects attributable to 
random variation or constant bias from a known or unknown source. 

Research in cannabis effects on humans has not always been per- 
formed or presented with objectivity. Many studies have been severely 
limited by indiscriminately including multiple drug users, thus fre- 
quently raising more questions than providing useful information. As 
an example of such research, I would like to comment briefly on the 
study entitled "Cerebral Atrophy in Young Cannabis Smokers," that 
was introduced in testimony before this committee on September 18, 
1972. In the 10 cases reported, all 10 men had used LSD — many of 
them over 20 times as — well as cannabis, and 8 of the 10 had used 
amphetamines. One subject had a previous history of convulsions, four 
had significant head injuries, and a number had used sedatives, bar- 
biturates, heroin, or morphine. On the basis of these facts, speculative 
connection between cannabis use and brain damage is highly suspect. 
Unfortunately, this type of report is typical of much of the research 
done in this field. 

Before discussing specifically the effect of cannabis use on humans, 
I would like to state that my colleagues and I feel that, in areas of 
major significance, the physical effects of cannabis use are not well 
documented by animal studies. To the best of our knowledge, there 


are no reports on the effects of cannabis on spermatogenesis in pri- 
mates or even in mammals 

Mr. Martin. Spermatogenesis is the process of producing sperm? 

Dr. Kolodxt. This is correct. There are no reports in the literature 
describing changes, if any, in reproductive hormones in animals given 
cannabis chronically or acutely; and the hormonal studies reported 
to date represent, at best, incomplete and, at worst, irresponsible sci- 
entific methodology. In as important areas as impairment of fertility 
or possible teratogenicity — production of physical defects in the de- 
veloping embryo — animal experimentation has proceeded slowly and 
left important questions unanswered. 

A brief examination of the background literature may be informa- 
tive. In 1965, Miras reported that female rats maintained on a diet 
containing 0.2 percent marihuana extract for several months showed 
a significant reduction in fertility and a reduced growth rate. Tera- 
togenicity was not observed. Persaud and Ellington, used cannabis 
resin at a dosage of 16 milligrams per kilogram of body weight in- 
jected into pregnant rats on days 1-6 of gestation, caused complete 
fetal resorption; in a subsequent report, dosage levels of 4.2 milli- 
grams per kilogram of body weight on days 1-6 of gestation were 
shown to have a variety of teratogenic effects. These effects included 
syndactyly — webbing between the digits — in 72 percent of the ani- 
mals, encephalocele — hernia of the brain — in 57 percent, phocomelia — 
abnormal development of the limbs, with the "seal-flipper" appear- 
ance also encountered with thalidomide — in 15 percent, complete ab- 
sence of a limb or limbs in 2 percent, and protrusion of the bowels 
from the abdomen in 30 percent. Similar work was then repeated by 
Greber and Schramm in 1969, with litters from female hamsters 
receiving marihuana described with the following abnormalities: 
"fetuses with head, spinal, and whole body edema, phocomelia, om- 
phalocele, spina bifida, exancephaly, multiple malformations, and 

Pace, Davis, and Borgen reported impaired fertility but not abso- 
lute sterility in female rats given either delta-9 or delta-8 tetrahydro- 
cannabinol by injection — 20 or 40 milligrams per kilogram of body 
weight — on alternate days for a 30-day period. Harbison and Man- 
tilla-Plata showed that delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol was transferred 
across the placenta and was embryo or fetocidal in mice, but no ob- 
servation of fertility was possible since drug administration began 
after conception. 

It must be stressed that these animal studies cannot be accurately 
transferred to humans because of obvious differences in the high doses 
employed and the mode of administration utilized. However, it is ap- 
parent that there is a potential risk in cannabis use during preg- 
nancy, and that, at present, there are no adequate studies of women 
who have used cannabis during pregnancy with relation to the health 
of their children. 

Reproductive studies of cannabis effects in male animals have been 
far fewer in number. Merari, Barak, and Playes reported that delta- 
1(2) tetrahydrocannabinol caused deterioration in sexual perform- 
ance in rats, which they attributed to "reduced sexual motivation." 
No histologic or endocrine studies were done, however. Ling and his 


coworkers administered delta-1 tetrahydrocannabinol to adult male 
rats for 4 days, but did not report any alteration in gonadal activity. 
However, they did not measure hormone production or sperm counts 
and did not examine histologic section of the testes. It is indeed dis- 
quieting that there are no careful, controlled studies of chronic or 
acute cannabis effects on male reproductive physiology in animal 

Galen, approximately 18 centuries ago, has been cited as stating that 
"Hempe * * * by much use thereof * * * dryeth up the natural seede of 
procreation" and "doth refraineth Venereous desires." Much specula- 
tion currently exists concerning cannabis and sexuality, but system- 
atic controlled studies of this area have been conspicuously lacking. 

We have recently published a report in the New England Journal of 
Medicine entitled "Depression of Plasma Testosterone Levels After 
Chronic Intensive Marihuana Use" that we hope will be viewed as an 
invitation to scientists across the world to direct their attention spe- 
cifically to possible reproductive consequences of marihuana use. 

This report describes our studies in a group of 20 men aged 18 to 28 
who had each used marihuana at least 4 days a week for a minimum 
of 6 months, without use of other drugs during that interval. In the 6 
months before the study began, these subjects averaged weekly con- 
sumption of 9.4 joints of marihuana, with some subjects averaging as 
much as 18 joints per week. The overall duration of marihuana use — 
although not at this dosage level — averaged approximately Z\Z 2 years 
for the group. One subject had used the drug regularly for 8 years. 
The duration of marihuana use at least 4 days a week in this group 
averaged 11.1 months. 

Men were chosen for this study, after meeting the first criterion of 
use of marihuana at least 4 days a week for a minimum period of 6 
months, according to the following criteria : no history of use of any 
drug by injection except under a physician's care; no history of in- 
gestion of LSD or other hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, 
cocaine, narcotics, hypnotics, or sedatives in the preceding 6 months ; 
no history of using male or female sex hormones; no history of en- 
docrine disease; no history of hepatitis or other liver disease; and 
alcohol intake not more than two ounces per day. 

Twenty healthy men who had never used marihuana and who met 
the other criteria described above served as a control group. These 
men were matched with the test group for age and for cigarette- 
smoking habits. The ages of these men were also 18 to 28 years. 

At this point in my discussion, I would like to emphasize the fact 
that we did not provide marihuana for the men we studied, nor did we 
ask them to continue their drug use pattern. It also should be stated 
that we did not supervise their use of marihuana, and specifically that 
they did not engage in marihuana use in our laboratories or offices. 

We investigated blood levels of a variety of hormones that are im- 
portant in reproduction. The principal male sex hormone, testosterone, 
was found to be approximately 44 percent lower in the group of men 
using marihuana chronically and frequently than in the group of men 
who had never used this drug. This finding was not uniform in all the 
men studied, however, and it appeared to be related to the amount of 
marihuana used. Men who averaged 10 or more marihuana "joints" 


per week had significantly lower testosterone levels than men who used 
fewer than 10 marihuana cigarettes weekly. 

Interestingly, a standard test which measures the capacity of the 
testes to produce the male sex hormone showed that in all four sub- 
jects tested while thev continued marihuana use, normal responses were 
found— blood levels of testosterone rose from 121 to 269 percent. This 
would seem to indicate that the effect of marihuana is not directly on 
the male sex organs, but is at a higher regulatory center, which might 
be either the pituitary gland or the hypothalamus, a part of the brain 
quite important in hormone regulation. 

Three subjects discontinued the use of marihuana for a 2- week pe- 
riod, and in each instance, a significant increase was seen in blood 
testosterone during this time. It would therefore appear that the 
testosterone-lowering effect of marihuana may have been only tempo- 

Six of 17 men tested showed sperm counts that were below normal, 
with some of these men in the area that is considered sterile. Of course, 
we do not know if the lowered or sterile counts were present before 
these men began using marihuana. We also do not know if these counts 
might increase if marihuana use is stopped. This is because it would 
require a minimum of 3 to 6 months off the drug to evaluate this, since 
it takes approximately 8 or 9 weeks for a generation of new sperm 
cells to come to maturity, and at any time there are many generations 
of sperm cells within the testes. 

Two of the 20 subjects using marihuana reported impaired sexual 
functioning. In one instance, a man who had experienced potency 
problems intermittently over the preceding year was asked to stop us- 
ing marihuana, and now, 10 months later, has not had further sexual 
difficulties. We have also seen two patients, who were not part of this 
research study, where frequent long-term use of marihuana was asso- 
ciated with impotence and lowered plasma testosterone. In both these 
instances as well, discontinuing the marihuana use led to normal sex- 
ual functioning. 

We would like to point out that this study has a number of problems 
that need to be considered for a careful interpretation of our findings. 
First, the sample size is quite small, so that it is not possible to accu- 
rately generalize our findings to all young men using cannabis this 
frequently. We do hope that others will enlarge these and related 
studies in controlled investigations. Second, we have no absolute veri- 
fication that the marihuana users were not also using other drugs that 
might lower hormone levels or affect sperm production. Third, we 
have no knowledge of the purity or potency of the marihuana used by 
these men. Therefore, we reiterate our position that this work raises 
an area of serious concern, but does not answer specifically the ques- 
tion of safety in marihuana use. 

There are theoretical possibilities that might be related to our find- 
ings beyond those that I have discussed. Since at least some of the 
active constituents of marihuana have been shown to cross the pla- 
centa, there may be a significant risk of depressed testosterone levels 
within the developing fetus when this drug is used by a pregnant 
woman. Since normal sexual differentiation of the male depends on 
adequate testosterone stimulation during critical stages of develop- 


ment, occurring approximately at the third and fourth months of 
pregnancy, it is possible that such development might be disrupted. 
Theoretically, there is also the possibility that marihuana use by the 
prepubertal male may delay the onset or completion of puberty or 
may interfere with bone growth, if a suppression of pituitary or 
hypothalamic function occurs. Neither of these possibilities has been 

Drs. Masters, Toro, and I have been involved in further research 
into marihuana effects on male hormone status, where we have 
measured the effects of acute marihuana use on the hormone levels of 
experienced smokers. In this experimental setting, we are working 
with highly controlled conditions, and because these subjects are 
hospitalized, we can be sure they are not using any additional drugs, 
including tobacco and alcohol. 

In the initial phase of these studies, which is all I am able to re- 
port about today, four men have been evaluated during the first 3 
hours after smoking a single marihuana cigarette of known potency. 
This testing is done after they have abstained from any marihuana 
use for at least 2 weeks, and it is done in a standardized format so 
that variations in activity or time of day do not occur. Two days 
prior to the test day, each subject undergoes a series of blood samples 
to coincide with the samples to be obtained during the test : In this 
way we can evaluate possible stress effects of obtaining the blood 
sample as well as variation related to time. 

In each instance, plasma testosterone levels dropped significantly 
lower than the level immediately prior to smoking marihuana, with 
the decreases attributable to marihuana ranging from 10 to 36 per- 
cent, with an average decrease of 27 percent. We plan to expand 
these studies, and a full report will be prepared within a year. 

In addition, the Reproductive Biology Research Foundation has 
submitted to the N.I.H. a proposal to study the effects of chronic, 
intensive marihuana use by women in the reproductive age range 
specifically designed to evaluate their hormonal status and sexual 
functioning. If approval and funding for this proposal are obtained, 
such studies could begin in the near future. 

To summarize our opinion on the issue of legalization of mari- 
huana, we must state that from a scientific viewpoint, there are too 
many unanswered questions to warrant such a change in current laws. 
The resolution of these questions may present convincing evidence 
of either the safety or danger of marihuana use, but until such defini- 
tive information is available, we consider it of paramount import to 
encourage careful and objective research in this field. 

However, we wish to draw the distinction between our role as 
scientists and as concerned citizens. Scientists do not and should not 
make or enforce laws, and our position is simply that of wanting the 
legislators and the public to be well-informed on all sides of this 

Believing that the question of legalization of marihuana is pre- 
mature, we would now like to state our personal hope for a move to- 
ward the decriminalization of marihuana possession. When mari- 
huana possession is a felony, society as well as the individual pays a 
high price indeed, measured not only in dollars and time, but in 


immeasurable disruption of lives. The attention of law enforcement 
agencies has been necessarily diverted from other areas of concern, 
and yet there has not been a decrease, but a marked increase, in the 
use of this drug. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gtjrney. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Kolodny, as you know, there is a widespread belief, especially 
among young people, that marihuana enhances one's sexual life. Is 
this borne out by your own research or by the research of any other 
scientists with whom you are familiar? 

Dr. Kolodny. There has been no research evidence that indicates 
that marihuana acts as a sexual stimulant, In point of fact, although 
our studies were not directed at answering this question, the finding 
of lowered testosterone levels and impotence in at least some men 
using marihuana points to the fact that an opposite effect from that 
so popularly stated may, in fact, be going on at least in some users of 
the drug. 

Mr. Martin. Could it be that as a result of the general euphoria 
which results from marihuana use, young people who use it are under 
the impression that their sexual powers have been enhanced, when 
this is not in fact the case? 

Dr. Kolodny. This is one possibility, certainly. Another might be 
that the perception of feelings might be altered but the actual per- 
formance not changed or possibly even diminished somewhat but 
that the perception of the experience was altered in some way. 

Mr. Martin. Is there enough evidence to make possible a compari- 
son of the effects of alcohol and tobacco in the reproductive system 
as opposed to the effects of marihuana which you have described ? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes, sir, I think there is and I base my comments on 
work that I have conducted as well as work done by others. Alcohol, 
when used with high frequency in terms that would generally be con- 
sidered alcohol abuse, certainly can produce disruption of normal 
hormone balance and lowering of testosterone and can produce actual 
wasting of the testicular tissue as well as other feminizing changes 
in the male such as enlargement of the breasts. 

The effects of excessive alcohol use on the production of sperm are 
less clearly understood, but apparently alcoholism can result in de- 
creased sperm production. However, our studies of the acute use of 
alcohol, that is, the effect of the immediate effects of graded amounts 
of alcohol on blood levels of testosterone, indicate no drop at differ- 
ent times of day and under different conditions in experiments that 
were very carefully controlled. Our evidence having to do with mari- 
huana, although I label this as preliminary evidence, shows that 
marihuana does have a sudden effect of lowering testosterone values 
within a matter of hours. 

The effects of cigarette smoking on reproduction have been greatly 
exaggerated, I believe, in the popular press. There is currently no 
good evidence of which I am aware, based on my own work or work 
of others, that cigarette smoking decreases hormone production or 
decreases sperm production. 


Mr. Martin. Your study mentioned several cases of impotence re- 
sulting from heavy marihuana use. Do you know of any other medi- 
cal reports that would tend to confirm this finding? 

Dr. Kolodny. There have been anecdotal reports, as this report is 
also, mentioning the occurrence of impotence associated with heavy 
cannabis use in both Jamaica and in portions of the Mideast. How- 
ever, these studies have not been done carefully enough to delineate 
what the actual mechanisms are. Animal studies have shown that at 
least in the rat a deterioration in male sexual performance has been 
described but the animal literature is very, very sparse on this point. 

Mr. Martin. In the research paper on which your testimony today 
is based, you mention the possibility that there may be some relation- 
ship between the effects of marihuana on the reproductive system and 
the passive behavior — sometimes referred to as "the amotivational 
syndrome" — which many observers have noted in regular marihuana 
users. Could you elaborate on this briefly ? 

Dr. Kolodny. Yes, sir. In elaborating on this I would like to label 
what I am saying as very highly speculative but nevertheless it does 
have a theoretical basis. There is in existing literature a correlation 
between levels of testosterone and aggression, and I use that term in 
the scientific sense, not in a sense of socially deviant behavior. When 
testosterone levels get low. usually ambition and aggression get low. 
This has been documented in animals, in primates and in the human 
in a variety of different studies over the past 5 years. 

In theory, if the reports of alteration of behavior patterns in heavy 
cannabis users are accurate, the basis for this so-called amotivational 
syndrome may potentially be the decreased testosterone level. 

Mr. Martin. A very interesting speculation, Dr. Kolodny. I hope 
it is pursued scientifically. 

If cannabis products impair the DNA of sperm cells, as some re- 
searchers now report, could this imply the possibility that the sperm 
of marihuana smokers thus affected might produce genetically dam- 
aged offspring ? 

Dr. Kolodny. Mr. Martin, that is a very difficult question to an- 
swer, and I think I would have to say that it cannot be answered on 
the basis of any research that has been done. That possibility, I be- 
lieve, would exist but I would like to qualify what I am saying by 
the statement that much of the testimony today, I think, has been 
couched in terms of scientific opinion rather than actual scientific 
fact, and I would like to distinguish my answer there as my opinion, 
that is, that such genetic damage might occur, but it would require 
careful studies in the human to know whether that is happening. 

Mr. Martin. In your statement, Dr. Kolodny, you said that your 
findings are preliminary, and that there will have to be more research 
before these findings can be firmly established. I have a philosophical 
question. Should a scientist publish findings which he considers to be 
preliminary ? 

Dr. Kolodny. Mr. Martin, I would answer this question in this 
way. I think it is a good question. I believe that it is the responsibil- 
ity of a scientist to call the attention of other scientists to possible 
areas of research for their consideration. It is also my personal belief, 
and I will so state it, that there is no piece of scientific research that 


can be fully accepted until it has been repeated by at least one in- 
dependent party, that is, who has not participated in the original 
work. This process of the replication of scientific experiments, I 
think, is a fairly accepted one in the academic community, and I use 
the word preliminary in that sense, that while I have full confidence 
in the findings in the small group of men we studied I will have more 
confidence when other researchers have enlarged these studies. 

Mr. Martin. You stated in your prepared statement that you would 
be opposed to the legalization of marihuana ? 

Dr. Kolodnt. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. That is, complete legalization ? Could you briefly state 
the basic reasons for your opposition to legalization ? 

Dr. Kolodnt. Yes, sir, I will try to summarize those reasons. I am 
restricting my remarks to my own field of expertise, which is the 
field of reproduction, but I do acknowledge the testimony of other 
scientists in different areas that I think speaks toward the same 
point, and that is as Dr. Morishima pointed out, there are many re- 
search areas that have simply not been fully enough studied for us 
to even begin to make a statement of safety in marihuana use. 

In my particular area there is evidence currently, based on both 
animal and human experimentation, that indicates the possibility of 
consequences that potentially are serious ones, and in light of these 
possibilities, which I would mention briefly as disruption of sperm 
production, the possibility of birth defects, the possibility of impair- 
ment of hormone balance and the possibility of either inhibition of 
puberty or disruption of normal sexual differentiation during fetal 
development, I think until answers to these questions are more fully 
known that it would be extremely poor judgment to consider legal- 

Mr. Martin. A further question on marihuana and the law. You 
said that you favor rewriting the marihuana law so that simple pos- 
session would be decriminalized. I think this is something upon which 
just about everyone agrees and very few young people, if any — I sup- 
pose there are some — are being sent to jail today for simple posses- 
sion. But there are some who argue that a penalty, even if a minimal 
penalty, should be retained in order to make it clear to young people 
that society has to protect itself against this, and society does not 
approve of its use. Other people feel that any kind of punishment is 
counterproductive. What is your own thinking on this matter? 

Dr. Kolodxy. I think that is a good question and I do sincerely 
hope that no one is being jailed today for simple possession. The use 
of sanctions of the law in the form of perhaps a fine or some other 
appropriate punishment, if one chooses to use that word, is certainly 
a necessary thing if one is not going to legalize the drug, and I am in 
favor of retaining legal sanctions but decriminalizing from the view- 
point of an actual jail sentence, and I do specify for possession of 
the drug. 

Mr. Martin. All right, thank you for clarifying your position on 
this matter. 

Did I understand correctly that your studies that have recently 
been conducted have been funded by NIH ? 

Dr. Kolodnt. No, sir. 


Mr. Martin. Or you have applied for funding ? 

Dr. Kolodnt. We have applied for funding for doing a similar 
study in females to look for reproductive consequences of cannabis 
use. We are currently carrying on research that also has been funded 
by a private source. The Frederick Ayer Foundation has provided 
our funding. 

Mr. Martin. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. No, thank you, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate your 
testimony here on a very important subject. 

Professor Leuchtenberger, I am sorry you have to wait so long. 
You have been very patient and we certainly welcome your testi- 
mony, Professor. Could you identify yourself for the record ? 


Dr. Leuchtenberger. I am Prof. Cecile Leuchtenberger, and I am 
the head of the Department of Cytochemistry at the Swiss Institute 
for Experimental Cancer Research, Lausanne, Switzerland. 

Senator Gurnet. I will ask a few questions here to establish your 

I understand you are a biologist who has had special training in 
experimental cancer research, cytology, cytochemistry and biophysics, 
is that correct ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And that you received your Doctor of Philos- 
ophy in Biology at Columbia University in 1949 ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And that you continued your advanced education 
at institutes in Sweden and in Switzerland? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And from 1950 to 1959 you were head of the De- 
partment of Cytochemistry at the Institute of Pathology, Western 
Reserve University, in Cleveland? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. As a matter of fact, you established this depart- 
ment, did you not? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes, I did. 

Senator Gurnet. And you subsequently worked at the Children's 
Cancer Research Foundation and the Children's Medical Center at 
Harvard University? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. From 1956 to 1962, you served as a member of the 
advisory committee of the American Cancer Society, and you also 
served on its committee on research on lung cancer ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And your research has at different times been 


supported by the U.S. Public Health Service and the World Health 
Organization, in addition to various foundations? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are now an associate professor at the 
medical school of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And you have also lectured extensively at Euro- 
pean and American universities? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are the author of over 130 scientific 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. All told, you have had more than 30 years expe- 
rience in cancer research, and 26 years of experience in cell research ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. I understand you reside in Switzerland but you 
are an American citizen since 1944, is that correct? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. We will be glad to have your statement, Doctor. 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you first for the 
honor to be invited to report about our research studies on marihuana 
before this distinguished committee. We started our experimental 
studies on marihuana in 1970 and I would like to say this work was 
done in collaboration with Prof. Dr. Rudolf Leuchtenberger M.D., 
experimental pathologist. The marihuana was obtained after permis- 
sion of the Health Department of the Swiss Government, from Dr. 
Olav J. Braenden, director, United Nations Narcotics Laboratory, 
Geneva, Switzerland and the work was supported by the World 
Health Organization. 

Our experimental work on marihuana has been concerned so far 
with three principal questions. 

(1) What effect has smoke from marihuana cigarettes on the respi- 
ratory system, and how does the effect compare with that of smoke 
from tobacco cigarettes? 

(2) What effect has smoke from marihuana cigarettes on the cell 
metabolism, in particular, what is its effect on the genetic material, 
that is on the DNA? 

(3) "What effect has smoke from marihuana cigarettes on the 
spermatogenesis ? 

Experimental exploration in this direction appeared to us neces- 
sary because in spite of the fact that smoking of marihuana has be- 
come a widespread human habit, there was hardly any information 
concerning effects of marihuana cigarette smoke itself on the respira- 
tory system and other tissues and their cell metabolism. 

Furthermore, during our extensive experimental studies concerning 
the role of tobacco cigarette smoke in lung carcinogenesis and its 
effect on cellular DNA metabolism of the respiratory system, we had 
developed model systems permitting to examine effects of fresh smoke 
on tissues, cells and DNA under standardized conditions. 

. There is no intention on my part here to impose on you any techni- 
cal details but I think for a better understanding of the results which 


we will discuss here today, I would like to say, if I may, just a few 
words about the model systems which we used. 

There are two main model systems which we used, and which are 
actually complementary to each other. 

In the first model system we expose cultures prepared from animal 
or human lung to puffs of fresh smoke from marihuana cigarettes. 
Now, this model system is particularly suitable to assess time se- 
quential alterations in cells and tissues, after short- and long-term 

In the second model system we use inhalation experiments in mice 
with marihuana cigarette smoke. I would like to say that inhalation 
experiments in mice pose a difficult problem because man is the only 
individual who inhales voluntarily the smoke either from tobacco or 
marihuana cigarettes. However, we have developed a machine which 
permits individual mice to inhale repeatedly one puff of smoke al- 
ternating with fresh air thus imitating as closely as possible the habit 
of human cigarette smokers. This model system permits us to assess al- 
terations in the respiratory and other systems after short- or long- 
term inhalation of marihuana cigarette smoke in living animals. 

For a better understanding of the results to be discussed, a few 
words should be said at least in regard to the methods employed in 
analysis of the genetic material DNA. We used special quantitative 
cytochemical technics, such as radioautography, microspectrography, 
and microfluorometry. The unique character of these methods lies not 
only in the possibility that an analysis of DNA can be made in a 
single cell, or in part of a cell, such as the nucleus or the chromo- 
somes, but also that the DNA analysis can be made in situ in micro- 
scopic preparations, in other words, without destroying cell or tissue 
architecture. Thus, it is possible to make a direct comparison between 
morphology and DNA behavior on the same cell and from cell to cell 
at the microscopic level. 

There are three different types of experimental studies which we 
have carried out so far, and on which the following results were 


In the first experimental study we exposed mouse lung cultures to 
puffs of fresh smoke from tobacco cigarettes without marihuana, and 
then the same cultures to puffs of fresh smoke from tobacco cigarettes 
to which marihuana was added. In these experiments we used a rela- 
tively low dose or, as we say in technical terms, a small puff volume 
of the cigarette smoke and a relatively short exposure. 

It was found that addition of marihuana to tobacco cigarettes pro- 
duced a smoke which was much more harmful to these mouse lung 
cultures than was the smoke from tobacco cigarettes without mari- 
huana. From the data given in figures 1 and 2, it can be seen that daily 
exposure to two puffs (puff volume 8 ml) for 5 consecutive days to 


cigarette smoke without marihuana did not produce significant alter- 
ations in the cultures, when compared with nonexposed control cul- 
tures. On the other hand, the same type of exposure to cigarette 
smoke with marihuana evoked significant alterations in cell morphol- 
ogy, cell division, DNA content and DNA synthesis. 

The frequencies of all these alterations were statistically significant 
when compared not only with frequencies in nonexposed control 
cultures, but also when compared with frequencies in cultures ex- 
posed to tobacco cigarettes without marihuana. 

The finding that after exposure to smoke from tobacco cigarettes 
with marihuana there were many abnormalities in cell division and 
a shift from the constant normal DNA content in cells towards higher 
DNA amounts or polyploidy (fig. 2), deserves special attention, 
because both types of alterations are often observed in precancerous 
or cancerous lesions. 1 









(n,= 54) 

0,28 i 0,07 

0,39 t 0,002 

pCo =.0005 
pCi = .025 


(n 2 r 450) 


2 DNA 

4 DNA 



p = .0005 


( 3 H TdR) 

In, = 15 ) 

10,9 i 2,1 

13,6 i 2,6 

19,2 t 1,9 
pCi =.05 


(+) - + = SLIGHT EFFECT 


1 The results mentioned here were published in more details under the title "Mor- 
phological and cytochemical effects of marihuana cigarette smoke on epithelioid cells 
of lung explants from mice" (Leuchtenberger C. and Leuchtenberger R.) in "Nature," 
vol. 234, No. 5326, pp. 227-229, 1971. 


'is. 2 










100 -| 



i ! 






0,5 gr. 80 
0,4° THC 


2 DNA 




p = 0,025 40 


4 DNA 



1 9 r - 80 



p = 0,0005 ^ 

4 DNA 


0,5 gr. 
4 THC 

2 DNA 

4 DNA 







If we come now to the second type of the experimental study, here 
we used human lung cultures, because after all it is the human prob- 
lem in which we are interested. We used human lung cultures from 
adult and fetal lungs, and compared effects of smoke from cigarettes 
which were made from tobacco only — whereby we used the so-called 
Kentucky standard tobacco — with effects of smoke from cigarettes 
which were prepared with the same paper but made from marihuana 

For this study on human lung cultures larger puff volumes, 25 mil- 
liliters of smoke were utilized than in the study on mouse lung cul- 
tures, 8 milliliters. This puff volume was chosen because it resembles 
more closely the standard puff volume of 35 milliliters inhaled by hu- 
man smokers. 

It was found that the alterations in human lung cultures — adult or 
fetal lung — were very similar after exposure to smoke from mari- 
huana cigarettes and after exposure to smoke from Kentucky stand- 
ard cigarettes. From the scheme in figure 3 and the data given in fig- 
ures 4 and 5, it can be seen that each type of smoke produced abnor- 
malities in DNA synthesis, in cell division, and stimulated irregular 
growth of the lung cultures. 

Furthermore, after exposure to each type of smoke the human lung 
cultures disclosed a variability in number and DNA content of 

However, this disturbance of the genetic equilibrium of the cell 
population which persisted for prolonged periods after exposure was 
more marked after exposure to smoke from marihuana cigarettes 
than after exposure to smoke from Kentucky standard tobacco ciga- 
rettes — compare statistical significance, p values in figures 4 and 5. 



>9- CAnanc-jeS iri ot'-ll.s £,-cm c*du.l4- 

Af+er Exposure 

Inh.tD.-rlon o£ DMA 

Syn-Hies l s arvd of- mifosvS. 

Enlarge, me v">+ cmd 
irr-egubM-i+ies of nuclei ; 
hvCjH DNJA C-< 
£>-Ky>-.LAlo47ion o-f DMA 
.Sv.; n4-hesis j aboofmal 
mik>£is ^ I agg i mg £>-£ 

Hyperplasia ^ abnormal 
pr-O^ i-fe^Oi-i-ioo Wig In 

rvM+o£.is _, abnorKnal 
number- a.nd D NJ A 




























p Co = 0065 

pCo.= 05 _ 


N*= Number of cells measured 
N 1 = Number of experiments 


l ig.5 




i i i n i i i H-rn i n m i i rr'T' i mm 

46 50 52- 64- 75- 84- 88 -92 96- 105- 


P. C - 0005 

n m n m n n n i rrn 

46 50 -52 -56- 76- 87 89-92 95-100 


P« Co< 0005 

n i n n r-TT^n 

-r*n*r* r~ 

42 46 50 52- 56-72- 82-86 88 -92 96- 105 




This larger effect of marihuana cigarette smoke on chromosomes 
and their genetic material gains special significance if the following 
observation is taken into consideration. Cigarettes made of marihuana 
smoked and drew less well than cigarettes made of Kentucky tobacco. 
The marihuana cigarettes, which contain a sticky resin, have a much 
larger side stream — this means much more smoke is lost in the air 
than with ordinary tobacco — so that much less marihuana smoke 
reached the cultures than after tobacco smoke. 

It remains to be seen whether long-term exposure to marihuana 
and tobacco smoke produces even greater differences between their 
effects on genetic material. 


The last study which we are carrying out, are inhalation experi- 
ments in mice with marihuana cigarette smoke. Here I would like to 
stress the fact that these experiments are underway, they are very 
incomplete, and the results which I present here today have not been 
published and they are preliminary. So far we have found that in- 
halation of smoke from marihuana cigarettes produced irregular 
growth in the respiratory system of these mice. The interesting obser- 
vation is, and this was done by Dr. Rudolf Leuchtenberger, who is 
a pathologist, that he noted that the location of the alterations was 
different from that after tobacco cigarette smoke. After inhalation 
of tobacco cigarette smoke, alterations were found mainly in the 
larger bronchi and bronchioles, while after marihuana they were 
found in terminal bronchioles. 

Furthermore, as seen in figure 6, inhalation of smoke from mari- 
huana cigarettes produces a marked variability and increase in DNA 
content in these bronchial cells. 




(-2000 PUFFS) 






















I — 






10 14 18 

I I I I 
22 26 30 34 


1 I 
6 8 10 



I Pco«000! 


I Pco« 0005 





, 20- 



I 18 

22 26 30 34 








6 8 10 


IN r 2 jj 



Another observation in this inhalation experiment, which is even 
more preliminary than this one. concerns the reproductive system of 
the male mouse. It was found that after male mice had inhaled for 
3 months puffs of smoke from approximately 100 cigarettes made of 
marihuana alone, there was a marked disturbance in spermatogenesis 
which was not found with the parallel group which had inhaled the 
tobacco smoke. After marihuana there were not only less mature 
sperms than in the controls or in the mice which had inhaled tobacco 
smoke, but many of the spermatids carried a faulty and reduced 
amount of DNA. 
Mr. Martin. A spermatid is merely a sperm cell? 
Dr. Leuchtenrerger. It is a stage just before the mature sperm is 
formed. I should like to say that such spermatids should contain ex- 
actly half the amount, haploid. of what we call the normal diploid 
amount of DNA. If this preliminary observation can be confirmed on 
a larger series of experiments, it would indicate that marihuana 
smoke interferes also with male fertility;. In our previous extensive 
studies concerned with the fertility problem, which had nothing to do 
with the marihuana problem, we had found that reduced amounts of 
DNA in spermatids are frequently associated with cattle and human 
infertility. 2 

In conclusion. I would like to say that we realize fully that many 
more experimental studies are urgently needed before any definite 
conclusions can be drawn concerning long- and short-term effects of 
marihuana cigarette smoke on tissues, cells and their genetic material, 

Nevertheless, on the basis of the data obtained so far in our ex- 
perimental studies 3 the following statement appears justified. 

Marihuana cigarette smoke has a harmful effect on tissues and 
cells of humans and of animals. The observation that marihuana 
cigarette smoke stimulates irregular growth in the respiratory system 
which resembles closely precancerous lesions would indicate that 
long-term inhalation of marihuana cigarette smoke may either evoke 
directly lung cancer or may at least contribute to the development of 
lung cancer. The observation that marihuana cigarette smoke inter- 
feres with the DNA stability in cells and in chromosomes, that is, it 
disturbs the genetic equilibrium of the cell population, strongly sug- 
gests that long-term inhalation may alter the hereditary material 
DNA and may also have mutagenic potentialities. Consequently fur- 
ther extensive research is urgently needed to explore chronic effects 
of marihuana cigarette smoke on cells and tissues. In particular, 
studies should be carried out which are concerned with the problem 
of possible mutagenic properties of marihuana. 
Thank you. 

" Leuclitenbcrser C. Weir D. R.. Schrader P., and Leuchtenberger R. "Decreased 
Amounts of Desoxvribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) in Male Germ Cells as a Possible Cause 
of Human Male Infertility." Acta Genet, fi : 272-278, 19~>fi. The results mentioned here 
were published in more detail under the following titles : "Abnormalities of Mitosis., 
DNA Metabolism and Growth in Human Lunc Cultures Exposed to Smoke From 
Marihuana Cigarettes, and Their Similarity With Alterations Evoked by Tobacco Cig- 
arette Smoke" (Lpuehtehberper C. and 'Leuchtenbergpr R.) In United Nations Bul- 
letin. ST/SOA/SER.S/37 November 17. 1972 ; "Effects of Marihuana and Tobacco 
Smoke on Human Lung Phvsiolojrv" (Leuchtenberger C. Lpuchtpnberger R., and Schneider 
A.) in Nature, vol. 241, No. 53S5* pp. 137-139. 1973; "Effects of Marihuana and Tobacco 
Smoke on DNA and Chromosomal Complement in Human Lung Explants" (Leuchtenberger 
C, Leuchtenberger R., Ritter U.. Inui N. ) in Nature, vol. 242, No. 5397, pp. 403-404, 1973 

3 See summary of main findings in table 1. 


Table I 

Main findings obtained in our experimental studies concerned with effects of 
marihuana cigarette smoke on tissues, cells and their DNA metabolism. 

(1) Cultures of animal and human lungs — after repeated exposure to smoke 
from marihuana cigarettes disclose abnormalities in DNA synthesis, in number 
of chromosomes and their DNA content, in cell division and growth (atypical 

(2) Mice — after repeated inhalation of smoke from marihuana cigarettes 
disclose atypical proliferation in bronchi of lungs accompanied by abnormalities 
in DNA synthesis and cell division. There are also disturbances in spermato- 
genesis, such as reduction of DNA content in spermatids. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Professor. You mentioned in the last 
part of your statement that marihuana cigarette smoke may have 
mutagenic potentialities. What do you mean by that? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. It means that marihuana cigarette smoke 
may alter the hereditary material. We understand under a mutagen 
an agent which produces a change in the genetic material which is 

Mr. Martin. That would lead or could lead to abnormal births? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. If you disturb the normal equilibrium of the 
genetic material the possibilities that you would get abnormal growth 
must be considered. 

Mr. Martin. Have you found evidence that marihuana or that cig- 
arettes laced with marihuana — I just want to understand — either 
one is much more likely to harm lung tissues than only cigarettes? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Did your experiments produce clearly cancerous for- 
mations in either the mice or in the lung tissue which you exposed 
to marihuana ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. No, we have no cancer so far but you must 
not forget that we only used relatively short-term inhalation and 
short-term exposure. For instance, from our experiments which we 
did with tobacco cigarette smoke, we know that the mice had to be 
exposed to inhalation for 1 year or longer before we saw enhancement 
of the lung carcinogenesis. Such long-term experiments with mari- 
huana are urgently needed. I am sorry if I did not express it suffi- 
ciently that the results were obtained after relatively short-term 

Mr. Martin. But there are certain changes in the cell structures 
which suggested to you that the lungs were moving, the lung tissue 
was moving in a precancerous direction ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes, as I pointed out, there is such an indi- 
cation. After marihuana cigarette smoke there are precancerous 
stages similar to those after tobacco cigarette smoke, of which we 
know that they precede malignant transformation, or cancer. 

Mr. Martin. Do you plan to conduct any experiments on the long- 
term effects of cannabis on lung tissues ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. We have such experiments underway but I 
would not like to talk about them because they are too scanty and 

Mr. Martin. What was the THC content of the marihuana you 
used in your experiments — was it strong marihuana or relatively 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. We got from Dr. Braenden marihuana with 


0.6 percent, and with 4 percent of THC, and we compared effects on 
mouse lung cultures and DNA. Although we did not make a dose 
response experiment, we did find that abnormalities in DNA were 
larger after larger concentrations of the tetrahydrocannabinol in 
marihuana. But I would like to say that before making a definitive 
statement, there should be experiments done where different doses of 
THC are used and assessed as to their effects on DNA. 

Mr. Martin. I do not know whether you feel qualified to answer 
this question, Professor Leuchtenberger, but it has been suggested by 
some sociologists and educators in the United States that drug educa- 
tion is counterproductive, that it does not scare young people away 
from drugs while it frequently excites their curiosity. Would you 
have any comments on this? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. I feel that this statement is not a correct 
statement. We must not underestimate the intelligence and the open- 
ness of young people. I can say from my own experience that the 
young people would like very much to have the scientific facts in- 
stead of emotions. The few young Swiss people with whom I have 
discussed the problem of marihuana in Switzerland, and actually 
other young Americans who work over there, when they see the data, 
that is when they see that marihuana smoke does damage to the cells 
of the respiratory system, and to the DNA, I think they give smok- 
ing of marihuana a second and third thought. I therefore feel very 
strongly that education of children in schools concerning health- 
damaging properties of marihuana should start as soon as possible. 
They should be informed on the scientific facts as they become 

Mr. Martin. Do you think the kind of scientific evidence that has 
been presented at this hearing today might be effective in persuading 
some young people who are being — are leaning toward marihuana 
to consider it? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. I am convinced of that. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you for that statement, Professor Leuchten- 

A final question I would like to ask for you comment on two pas- 
sages from a book by Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard University, 
a Harvard psychiatrist, "Marihuana Reconsidered." It is a best sell- 
ing book, probably the most popular of all the promarihuana books — 
and there have been quite a few of them. These are two passages that 
appear on different pages. On one page he says : 

It is quite true that among the hundreds and hundreds of papers dealing 
with cannabis, there is relatively little methodologically sound research. Yet, 
out of this vast collection of largely unsystematic recordings emerges a very 
strong impression that no amount of research is likely to prove that cannabis 
is as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco. 

That was written in 1971. 

And on page 371, there appeared the following passage : 

Indeed, the greatest potential for social harm lies in the scarring of so many 
young people and the reactive, institutional damages that are direct products 
of present marihuana laws. If we are to avoid having this harm reach the 
proportions of a real national disaster within the next decade, we must move 
to make the social use of marihuana legal. 

I ask for your comment on these two statements. 


Dr. Leuchtenberger. Well, on the first statement I would say no 
serious scientist at this time really could say that marihuana is harm- 
less if you have no facts. And the second, I think in view of the evi- 
dence which was brought here today, and I believe there will be more, 
I think you cannot make such a statement. To me as a scientist, such 
statements as you read are absolutely incomprehensible, to say it in 
the most charitable way. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Professor Leuchtenberger, for 
a very cogent presentation. I have no further questions. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask that the four 
publications which the professor told us about in discussing her ex- 
periments be submitted for the subcommittee files and that they be 
inserted in this record as part of the appendix if space permits. 

Senator Gurnet. They will be accepted. 

Mr. Sourwine. I would have this question in discussing your study 
No. 1, Professor, you spoke of the addition of marihuana to tobacco 
cigarettes. Did this mean that you used cigarettes composed of part 
marihuana and part tobacco? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, in discussing your results obtained in study 3, 
and I quote from your statement : "Furthermore, as seen in figure 6, 
inhalation of smoke from marihuana cigarettes produced a marked 
variability, an increase in DNA content in these bronchial cells." I 
am looking at figure 6 and I have a little difficulty understanding 
your statement. What is the control — is that the result with smoking 
tobacco cigarettes? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. We have actually two controls. One which we 
call a negative control, which is nonexposed, and the second control 
is when you expose it to tobacco smoke. 

Mr. Sourwine. Well, your chart appears to show only one control, 
if I read it correctly. 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. "Which figure? 

Mr. Sourwine. Figure 6, amount of DNA and size of nuclei in 
bronchiolar epithelial cells of Snell's controlled mice and after in- 
halation of fresh smoke from marihuana cigarettes. 

Now, your control seems to be the amount of DNA and the size of 
the nuclei in the epithelial cells of Snell's controlled mice, is that 
correct ? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, you say you have two controls. Is the other 
one reflected in any study? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. We did not place it in this chart but after 
tobacco cigarette smoke we did not find any differences from the 
control in the bronchiolar tissue. 

Mr. Sourwine. I am trying to find out what figure 6 is. I know 
what it says at the top but you say that figure 6 shows that the in- 
halation of smoke from marihuana cigarettes produces a marked in- 
crease in DNA content. 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. A marked increase over what? Over the control? 
That is the area, the amount of DNA and the size of the nuclei in 
control mice? 


Dr. Leuchtexberger. It is DNA in content in the cells of mice 
which have not been exposed to marihuana cigarettes. This upper 
thing, this is the normal distribution which you will find in the DNA 
content in the bronchiolar cells. 

Mr. Sourwixe. In other words, you used the same mice in one case, 
but in one test the mice had not been subjected to any smoke at all? 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. At the bottom, the mice had been subjected to 
marihuana ? 

Dr. Lettchtexberger. Right. 

Mr. Sourwixe. So that there is no comparison with cigarette smoke 
involved in figure 6 at all? 

Dr. Lettchtexberger. No. 

Mr. Sourwixe. "Well now, the control appears to range, the amount 
of DNA ranges as high as almost 40, and under the marihuana it 
never ranges above 20, but you say there was an increase. I cannot 
read the chart. 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. In the control, about 70 percent of the cells 
have an amount of DNA between 10 and 14, in arbitrary units. After 
marihuana you have no cells which have this amount of DNA; all 
the cells have a larger and variable amount. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Well now, let us look at the size of the nuclei on 
the same chart, figure 6. 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Your control ranged to about 38, if I read it cor- 
rectly. Your size of the nuclei under the marihuana smoking ranged 
to about 32 or not more than 33 ? 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. No, this is the frequency in percent which 
you read. The main range of size of nuclei is between four and seven 
in controls, while after exposure to the marihuana the main range is 
from six to nine. 

Mr. Sourwixe. All right, your figures, your blocks in black and 
your blocks in white, represent really two things, then. You may not 
read them as to height, you have to read them both horizontally and 
vertically at the same time? 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. And they represent, I see it reads here at the left, 
frequency in percent? 

Dr. Leuchtenberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. I must apologize for this line of questioning, but I 
dare say that if it confused me it might confuse others similarly un- 
scientific who see one higher than the other when it says lower. I 
think I now understand it. 

You are showing by this chart the total proportion of all your test 
cells that showed results in a certain range. 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Is that correct? 

Dr. Leuchtexberger. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwixe. I understand now. Thank you for explaining it. I 
have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurxey. AVell, I want to thank all of the members of the 
panel for coming here today and testifying on this very important 
subject of marihuana and its effect upon human beings. It is quite 


obvious from the testimony today that what the subcommittee 
thought when we started the hearings, that is ,we do not know much 
about marihuana, is readily apparent. From what we do know about 
it, it looks as though we ought to get a lot more knowledge about 
it because indeed, the effect of marihuana upon humans may be quite 
serious. I am sure that these hearings — and we will have others — 
mark an initial and very important efforts in trying to find out the 
effect of this drug upon human society. 

I do want to thank you so much for contributing to the knowledge 
of the subcommittee. Thank you. 

The subcommittee hearing is adjourned at the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to recon- 
vene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 17, 1974.] 

[The following testimony was given on Monday, May 20. In ac- 
cordance with the instructions of Senator Strom Thurmond, who pre- 
sided, it is printed together with the testimony of the panel of medi- 
cal researchers who testified on Thursday, May 16.] 



Senator Thurmond. Dr. Julius Axelrod, I believe, is our first wit- 
ness. Doctor, we are honored to have you here and will be pleased to 
hear from you at this time. 

Dr. Axelrod. I am honored to be here. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Axelrod, would you identify yourself briefly for 
the record ? 

Dr. Axelrod. I am chief of the section of pharmacology, labora- 
tory of clinical science, the National Institute of Mental Health, 
United States Public Health Service. 

Senator Thurmond. All right. Dr. Axelrod, where did you grad- 
uate from medical school? 

Dr. Axelrod. I am not a medical doctor, I am a doctor of philos- 
ophy ; I graduated from George Washington University. 

Senator Thurmond. From George Washington University ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. And you received your doctorate degree where ? 

Dr. Axelrod. From George Washington University. 

Senator Thurmond. You obtained your bachelor of science degree 
at the City College of New York, did you ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. Now, you pursued your scientific studies while 
working in various hospitals and institutes as laboratory assistant, 
research associate, and chemist, I believe? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. Is that right? 

Dr. Axelrod. Right. 

Senator Thurmond. From 1953 to 1955 you were senior chemist at 
the National Heart Institute of the NIH?' 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. In 1955 you received your Ph. D. from George 
Washington University, is that right? 


Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. Since 1955 you have been chief of the section 
on pharmacology, laboratory of clinical science, National Institute of 
Mental Health? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. Doctor, you are the author or coauthor of 
more than 360 scientific papers, is that correct? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. And you have been the recipient of numerous 
awards for scientific achievement, is that correct? 

Dr. Axelrod. That is correct. 

Senator Thurmond. And in 1970 you were awarded the Nobel 
Prize for physiology or medicine. 

Dr. Axelrod. That's correct. 

Senator Thurmond. Now, what was the specific accomplishment 
that brought you this award? 

Dr. Axelrod. The elucidation of the chemistry of the nervous sys- 
tem, and studies of the effect of drugs on the brain. 

Senator Thurmond. The effect of drugs on the brain? 

Dr. Axelrod. Right. 

Senator Thurmond. I see. Well, you may proceed with your state- 
ment, if you will. 

Dr. Axelrod. Senator, I am honored to testify before this com- 

Senator Thurmond. Now, are you going to follow your statement 
strictly ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes, I am. 

Senator Thurmond. Or would you just want to put it in the 
record ? 

Dr. Axelrod. I would rather read it, if I may. 

Senator Thurmond. All right, you may proceed with your state- 

Dr. Axelrod. For many years our laboratory has been involved in 
biochemical and pharmacological investigations on drugs affecting 
the mind. We have developed very sensitive methods for measuring 
LSD and amphetamine in blood, urine, and tissues. These studies 
made it possible to establish how long these psychoactive drugs re- 
main in the body, how much gets into the brain, and how the body 
disposes of them. Several years ago I found enzymes in the liver 
that detoxify narcotic drugs such as morphine, methadone, and dem- 
erol. More recently my colleagues and I demonstrated that drugs 
such as cocaine and amphetamine change the action of noradrena- 
line, a nerve chemical important for brain function. 

Our interest in marihuana stemmed from the increasing use of the 
drug and the lack of knowledge concerning what happened to it in 
the body. The discovery that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol — THC— 
as the most active principal in the marihuana-containing cannabis 
plant and the chemical synthesis of this compound by the Israeli 
chemist, Mechoulim, made it possible to study its fate in the human 
bodv. The NIMH Drug Abuse Center made available to us as well 
as other investigators radioactively labeled delta-9-tetrahydrocan- 
nabinol. The availability of THC made it possible for the recent 


rapid advances in our knowledge of the biochemistry, pharmacology, 
and behavior effects of this drug. 

We developed sensitive methods to measure THC in blood and 
urine of man. After injection to human volunteers we drew blood 
samples periodically over a period of time and measured the THC 
content. After an intravenous injection of THC the amount of this 
compound in plasma rapidly declined during the first hour, with a 
half-life of 30 minutes. That means, half the drug disappeared with- 
in 30 minutes. After 1 hour the THC disappeared from the plasma 
and presumably from the body much more slowly, with a half- 
life of 60 hours. THC and its biochemically transformed products 
continued to be excreted in the urine for more than a week! The 
initial rapid decrease in the plasma represents a redistribution of 
marihuana active principals from the blood into tissues including 
the brain and also chemical transformation. The metabolic alteration 
of THC takes place mainly in the liver. In man the psychological 
effects of marihuana are greatest in 15 minutes after injection, begin 
to diminish after 1 hour and are largely dissipated by 3 hours. This 
is consistent with the initial fast disappearance of the drug from 
the blood. 

The slower disappearance of THC from the body presumably 
represented retention in some tissue and slow release. The observa- 
tion that THC and its transformation products persist in humans 
for long periods of time indicated to us that the drug and its metab- 
olities would accumulate in some tissues when taken repeatedly. We 
then did a study to find out in what tissues THC is localized and 
whether its concentration builds up after repeated administration. 

To gather this information, radioactive THC was injected into 
rats. After a single dose there was 10 times more of the drug in the 
fat than any other tissue examined. After repeated administration 
of THC there was a gradual and steady accumulation of the drug 
in the fat. After a single injection of THC there was barely detect- 
able concentrations of THC in the brain, but after repeated adminis- 
tration there was a gradual accumulation of the drug in the brain. 

THC when administered to man is almost completely trans- 
formed, mainlv in the liver. The major metabolic product was identi- 
fied as 11 -hydroxy THC. This metabolite has been found in our 
laboratory and that of others to have essentially the same psychic 
effects, that is, as anxiety, euphoria, and pleasure. The intravenous 
administration of THC to chronic marihuana smokers resulted in a 
more rapid disappearance of THC from the blood, and at the same 
time there is a more rapid appearance of the physiologically active 
metabolite 11-hydroxy THC. This would suggest that repeated use 
of THC results in an increased capacity of enzymes in the liver to 
form this active metabolite. 

After the injection of the active principal of marihuana, THC, 
there is a rapid distribution of the drug in tissues especially fat 
and metabolic transformation to active and inactive metabolic prod- 
ucts. After repeated administration of THC is considerable accumula- 
tion and retention of the drug in fat and a smaller accumulation in the 
brain. Repeated administration of THC results in an increased capac- 
ity to form a psychologically active metabolic product. 


Until recently there was little reliable information about the 
pharmacological, biochemical, and psychological actions of mari- 
huana. Through the support of research by the U.S. Government for 
this important problem, increased knowledge is now becoming avail- 
able. The medical, social, and legal aspects of marihuana are still 
highly complex and require continued study at all these levels. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions, if you wish. 

Senator Thurmond. Counsel will now propound some questions. 

Mr. Martin. Doctor, there is no question in the scientific com- 
munity that THC is a toxic substance ? 

Dr. Axelrod. No, there is no question. 

Mr. Martin. There are, however, differences within the scientific 
community as to the degree of toxicity, and how the toxicity affects 
the body ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Would it be a reasonable assumption for a scientist 
to make that the retention and accumulation in the brain of toxic 
substance would probably, over a period of time, lead to damage ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes, that's a good assumption. 

Mr. Martin. But it has still to be demonstrated ? 

Dr. Axelrod. It has still to be demonstrated; yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. Is there any similarity between the manner in which 
THC accumulates in the tissue and the manner in which DDT 
accumulates ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes, both THC and DDT are fat soluble compounds, 
and because of this physical property are retained in fatty tissue. 

Mr. Martin. This retention also affects the gonads, does it not ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Well, it depends. I have heard recent reports that 
marihuana lowers the male gonadal hormone, testosterone. 

Mr. Martin. No, I am talking about that — it does accumulate? 

Dr. Axelrod. Oh, yes, it would accumulate in gonads, the brain, 
and other tissues where there are large concentrations of fat. 

Mr. Martin. Now, you had an opportunity, Dr. Axelrod, to ex- 
amine briefly the testimony given to the subcommittee last Thursday 
by Prof. Kobert Heath, who is chairman of the department of psy- 
chiatry at Tulane University. His testimony had to do with persist- 
ence of abnormal brain patterns in rhesus monkeys who had been 
subjected to marihuana smoke for a period of time. Dr. Heath told 
the subcommittee that these persistent alterations in the brain wave 
pattern pointed strongly to the conclusion that there had been per- 
haps irreversible damage to the brain. If this is the case, couldn't 
the accumulation of THC in the brain, which is established by your 
research, tie in with the changes referred to by Dr. Heath ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes; I would like to make a comment about Dr. 
Heath's report; may I? 

Mr. Martin. By all means. 

Dr. Axelrod. Now, one of the fundamental principles in pharma- 
cology is the amount of a compound or drug that enters the body. 
You could take the most poisonous compound, and if you take too 
little, there is no effect, One may take a very supposedly safe com- 
pound, and if you give enough of it, it will cause toxic effects. This, 
I think, all pharmacologists recognize. 


I respect Dr. Heath ; he is a fine neurologist ; but the doses he has 
given for the acute effect, for example, would be equivalent to smok- 
ing a hundred marihuana cigarettes, a very heavy dose of marihuana. 
And the amount he has given for the chronic effect represents 
smoking 30 marihuana cigarettes 3 times a day for a period of 6 

The results indicate that marihuana causes an irreversible damage 
to the brain. But the amounts used are so large that one wonders 
whether it's due to the large toxic amounts Dr. Heath has given. I 
think it would be a better experiment if he had done what is done 
in pharmacology, a dose response; smaller amounts equivalent to 
that used by an occasional marihuana smoker and larger amounts 
used by a chronic smoker to see what levels would produce these 
irreversible effects. I hope that this will be done. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you for your comment, Dr. Axelrod. But, I 
would like to point out that when Dr. Heath presented his report, he 
had to do it in 13 minutes; it was a very brief summary of a much 
longer study. I did have the impression from our questions afterward 
that the experiment was performed with doses of different calibrations. 

Dr. Axelrod. Right. 

Mr. Martin. And at different levels, and maybe that is not re- 
flected in the paper itself. Evidence has also been given during the 
hearing. Dr. Axelrod, by Dr. Nahas of Columbia University, and 
recent research indicated that marihuana inhibits human cell im- 
mune response mechanism and reproduction. Does this also tie in 
with the findings of your research and the findings of Dr. Heath's 
research ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Isn't there a pattern relating to permanent damage 
of the brain ? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes, perhaps this would be so. Again, I would like 
to qualify my statement. Dr. Nahas is a very fine scientist but these 
findings need repetition and confirmation. 

Mr. Martin. By all means. I might point out that quite a few 
of the scientists made the point, although it was clear they were 
pretty Avell convinced by the findings, the research had to be con- 
sidered preliminary for the time being. Nevertheless, there was 
enough evidence from preliminary research to bring it to the atten- 
tion of the public. 

Dr. Axelrod. I absolutely agree. 

Mr. Martin. Do you agree with that? 

Dr. Axelrod. I agree that taking marihuana in large doses is 
harmful, and the evidence is becoming pretty compelling. But, one 
has to remember that one has to distinguish between a small in- 
nocuous dose taken by an occasional marihuana smoker and a large 
repeated dose. 

Mr. Martin. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Thurmond. Doctor, I want to thank you very much for 
your testimony here today; we appreciate your appearance. 

♦The question raised by Dr. Axelrod about the dosages employed in the Heath experi- 
ment was the subject of a subsequent commentary by Professor Heath, mailed to the sub- 
committee on July 9, 1974. The text of this commentary is to be found in the appendix on 
page 382. 


FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Edward J. Gurney 

Also present : J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel ; David Martin, senior 

Senator Gurney. The subcommittee will come to order, please. 

I wish we could come to order because we are wasting time. 

Would you gentlemen rise, please? 

Will you all raise your right hands? 

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

[All witnesses replied "I do."] 

Senator Gurney. Thank you. 

We have a long series of witnesses here today, as we know, and I 
have obligations that require me to leave for Florida early in the 
afternoon so I would hope we could be as speedy and as brief as we 
can, and, in no way underestimating the extreme importance of 
this testimony, but, as I say, try to get our facts out as quickly as 
we can. 

The first witness will be Dr. Hall. 

Dr. Hall, will you identify yourself for the record, please? You 
don't have to stand up, just state who you are, you know, your name, 
where you reside. 


Dr. Hall. I am Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the 
Kingston Hospital in Jamaica. 

Senator Gurney. And I will ask a few questions, Dr. Hall, to 
establish your qualifications here. 

As I understand it, you received your medical degree from the 
University of London. King's College, in 1951? 

Dr. Hall. That is correct. 



Senator Gurnet. And you went on to take a diploma in neurology 
from the London Medical School in 1958 ? 

Dr. Hall. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Subsequently you had Observation Fellowships 
in Neurology at the Neurological Institute in New York, at the De- 
partment of Neurology in Pennsylvania Hospital, and at the Beau- 
mont Hospital, University of Lausanne, in Switzerland? 

Dr. Hall. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And you served as medical officer in the Ministry 
of Health in Jamaica from 1952 to 1960? 

Dr. Hall. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are currently Associate Lecturer in 
Medicine at the University of the West Indies and Visiting As- 
sistant Professor of Neurology at Columbia University ? 

Dr. Hall. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. And you have been senior physician and elected 
Chairman of the Department of Medicine of the Kingston Hospital, 
in Kingston, Jamaica, since 1965? 

Dr. Hall. Correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Would you proceed with your statement, Dr. Hall ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, may I venture a suggestion ? 

Senator Gurnet. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Sourwine. The Chair might wish to order that all of the 
prepared statements go into the record as though read at the begin- 
ning of each witness' presentation, leaving him free to repeat the 
statement or ad lib or make emphasis and instruct integration of the 
two when the record is corrected for printing so that nothing will be 
lost and time might be saved. 

Senator Gurnet. That is a good suggestion, Mr. Counsel, and that 
is so ordered. 

Dr. Hall. 

Dr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, may I thank you and your staff for 
giving me this opportunity to appear on this distinguished panel. 

In a previous publication I pointed to the fortuitous introduction 
of ganja or marihuana into Jamaica in the 18th century as a possible 
source of fiber plant, by the English plantation owner, Matthew 
Walker at his botanical gardens in Gordon Town, near Kingston. 

The Indian connection following the arrival of indentured labor- 
ers at the end of the last century is established historical fact. 

Senator Gurnet. Doctor, I wonder if you could point that micro- 
phone directly into your mouth so that it will pick up your voice 
just a little better. 

Dr. Hall. Quiet acceptance and public indifference to the use of 
ganja continued until 1954 when the village, Pinnacle, in the hills 
of St. Catherine some 20 miles from Kingston, was destroyed by 
a police raiding party. The village had become notorious as the home 
of praedial larceny, a center for the propagation and use of ganja, 
and the headquarters of the Rastafari cult. 

The resulting dispersal of the Rastafari cultists into the urban 
slums of Kingston, and into rural areas, was to have far-reaching 
consequences, as has been published in data elsewhere. 


I became interested in cannabis as a clinical problem because of: 

(1) Its ready availability in Jamaica; it grows in any backyard 
and in the wooded forests. 

(2) Ill-defined and undocumented clinical manifestations; 

(3) Lack of a definite laboratory test for identifying it; 

(4) Bizarre, sometimes short-lived confusional states seen in 
urban and rural practice; 

(5) Folklore; and 

(6) The impact of American cultural mores on our island com- 

With these factors in mind I have over the years inquired rou- 
tinely of all patients at initial interview whether they smoke ganja 
or drink ganja tea. The Department of Medicine at Kingston Public 
Hospital sees 12,000 outpatients at its clinics annually. 

My team sees approximately 5,000 of these patients, who represent 
a spectrum ranging from the unemployed ghetto dweller to the 
upper middle class. 

It has been possible therefore: 

(a) To arrive at a relative incidence of ganja usage 

(b) To study the motivation for its use 

(c) To identify clinical pictures with which its use is associated 
more often than coincidence will allow 

(d) To do certain laboratory studies 

(e) To gain some insight into its psychocultural effects. 

Ours is an adult clinic. Males are almost exclusively smokers of 
ganja although urbanization and fashion are causing other trends. 
These males come from the social spectrum indicated above. The age 
range was 15-65 years. 

Ganja tea is used about equally among working class men and 
women. In the first 4 months of this year, for example, there were 
just over 35 self-confessed ganja users among just over 1,000 clinic 
patients. This incidence of 3 percent contrasts with other reports of 
widespread use, and is in line with the incidence say of Parkin- 
sonism which constitutes 2.5 percent of my clinic population, and 
is an uncommon condition in Jamaica. It is accepted that the clinic 
population is not all embracing ; but if this figure were even tripled, 
we arrive at 9 percent. 

Motivation for the use of ganja is summarized as follows : 

1. Curiosity. 

2. Conformity with the group; social, religious, political. 

3. Relief of tension. 

4. Stimulation of thought and physical activity. 

5. Folk medicine. 

In our observation, dosage depends on : 

1. Manner and frequency of use. 

2. Variations in dosage per se. 

3. Potency of preparation smoked or brewed. 

4. Unreliable retrospective recall of frequency of use. 

5. Technique of smoking. 

6. Personal and intragroup variations. 

7. Limitations of costs. 

8. Legal strictures against the possession and use of ganja. 


It is noteworthy that a joint, or marihuana cigarette costs in our 
situation 40 to 50 cents, while a bottle of beer costs 25 cents and a 
quart of rum costs $1.80. A chillum pipeful of dried leaves is 
equivalent to about five cigarettes. To reach the same "high" using 
alcohol or ganja, the cost would be more with ganja. This challenges 
a point made by others that ganja is the poor man's substitute for 

Significantly none of these patients has been exposed to ampheta- 
mines. LSD, heroin, or other hallucinogens. Those interviewed could 
do without ganja for long periods of months at a time. Ritual 
smokers also knew when they had had enough. 

My findings were essentiallv nonclinical and clinical. 

The nonclinical findings related mainly to (1) Educational level; 
(2) occupational status; (3) marital status; (4) criminal record, on 
which I have commented in a previous publication. 

The levels that are quoted were quite low but certainly are not 
universally applicable as broader observation at the clinic, commu- 
nity or national level could indicate. The same observations would 
applv to criminal record. 

Clinical findings were certainly more significant and were divided 
into immediate and long-term findings. 

The immediate findings have been fully corroborated by other 
people who have found autonomic overactivity as shown by pupil- 
lary dilation, conjunctival suffusion, profuse diaphoresis, tachy- 
cardia, and mild hypotension. Shortly after these some of my cases 
showed hypothalamic overactivity, that is mild euphoria; others 
showed medullary stimulation by way of sedation or acute vomiting. 

The long-term effects were also quite remarkable. There were : 


An emphysema-bronchitis syndrome, common among Indian labor- 
ers of a past generation, who were well known for their gania smoking 
habits, is now a well recognized present day finding among black male 
laborers. Indeed, one of our cases died from acute pulmonary embolism 
and at autopsy demonstrated spontaneous trombosis of the pulmonary 
artery. In the autopsy room in general, the barrel-shaped, emphysema- 
tons, chest, is a common finding in Rastafarian cultists. This raises 
questions of their smoking habits and the possible action of toxic metab- 
olities from ganja acting on the pulmonary parenchyma, a point which 
was substantiated by one of yesterday's speakers, Dr. Leuchten- 


In the small sample series two cases previously published had 
radiologically proven duodenal ulcers also raising the question of 
toxic metabolites, vagal stimulation, or a parallel to the excretion of 
morphine in the stomach. 

Further observation suggests a greater association between duo- 
denal ulcer and ganja smokers, attending the clinic, than coincidence 
would allow. Detailed studies of gastric fluid and gastroscopic 
studies are clearly indicated. 



Among chronic ganja smokers obesity is never seen. The Rasta- 
fari cultists fully substantiate this point of the slim body build. 
Constant craving for sugar cane, highly sweetened beverages, or 
sweets is noted in many habitual smokers and cultists after smoking 
ganja. Many smokers also allege an increase of appetite. Persistent 
observations on our part of the absence of obesity suggest some in- 
terference with the metabolic pathways for depositing body fat. 
The PBI studied in a small series to date has not indicated thyroid 
hyperactivity and comment was made yesterday by one of the 
speakers on this interference with fatty metabolism. 


Ganja has long been regarded both by the laity and the profession 
as a cause of psychosis in Jamaica. The unrivaled, accumulated, ex- 
perience of Cooke, Roves, and Williams, who were in recent years 
senior medical officers at the Bellevue Hospital, in Kingston, Ja- 
maica, fully substantiates this. The observations also of Prince, 
Greenfield, and others corroborate this view. There is also the Moroc- 
can report of Benabud. It is a common experience in my wards, three to 
six cases per year of ganja psychosis being referred to the psychiatry 
clinic. This was noted in my preliminary report on ganja smoking 
in Jamaica. My experience can be readily duplicated in hospitals 
around Jamaica. It is noteworthy that a survey in a village of 
relatively well peasant farmers, for instance, might be misleading. 

An incidence of 20 percent impotence as a presenting feature 
among males who have smoked ganja for 5 or more years, was re- 
ported by me earlier. Several colleagues in private practice have 
been alerted to this and tend to corroborate my view of this prob- 
lem. The difficulties of assessing this symptom are self-evident. The 
likely involvement of the autonomic pathways awaits neuropath- 
ologies 1 studies. 

Personality changes among ganja smokers and members of the 
Rastafari cult are a matter of common observation in Jamaica. The 
apathy, retreat from reality, the incapacity or unwillingness for sus- 
tained concentration, and the lifetime of drifting are best summed 
up in the "amotivational syndrome" of McGlothin & West. 

Many smokers come to no grief, as it were, after several years of 
ganja use. On this basis some workers, and the media make a 
fashionable virtue of its use; they recommend it as a panacea for 
poverty, or a benevolent alternative to alcohol. This view is, at best, 
half truth. Common observation in Jamaica is that ganja smoking 
can be a catalyst for cataclysmic change for ill in the life of a ganja 
smoker. The Rastafarians to whom I have referred earlier in par- 
ticular typify this picture. Those interested can refer to the work 
of Smith, Augier and others, and Kitzinger, previously published. 

Mr. Chairman, I have documented some laboratory data which I 
shall ask to be incorporated in the record, but I draw particular 
attention to hypoglycaemia, that is to say, a fall in the normal 
blood sugar which was seen in three of eight cases, 1 hour after smoking 
25 grams of dried ganja leaf in a standard pipe. 


Mr. Martin. Is this a major drop in blood sugar level? 

Dr. Hall. Below the normal accepted level. 

Mr. Martin. But a substantial drop? 

Dr. Hall. Yes, of, say, from 120 before smoking to levels of 50 
or less within an hour of smoking 25 grams of the dried leaf. 

Mr. Martin. Within 1 hour of smoking? 

Dr. Hall. Precisely. 

May I continue? 

Mr. Martin. Please. 

Dr. Hall. This raises a question of the relevance of repeated 
hypoglycaemia to personality changes and psychoses well docu- 
mented by others. 

Mr. Chairman, the dilemma facing most societies regarding the 
legalized or uninhibited use of ganja is created, in my view, by 
vested interests and the media. In my country, Jamaica, many people 
do smoke ganja, I repeat, without apparent ill effects. There is, 
however, a growing number of young adults especially who are being 
pushed over the edge of the abyss, and are hanging in there in a 
world of chemically-induced, drug-induced, fantasy and nonpro- 

One can visualize at the national level ganja smoking changing 
the life style of a society, undermining economic productivity, and 
impairing a country's military effectiveness. 

One can visualize too, a totalitarian regime promoting it as an 
emotional escape valve, rather like institutionalized festivities. 

In Jamaica the vast silent majority recognize all these points and 
are not confused. They recognize the liaison and involvement with 
crime both local and international. 

In my view they are determined to preserve the Judeo-Christian 
ethic of pleasurable reward for hard work and the competitive, 
achievement-oriented value system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Dr. Hall, for your remarks. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Hall, as you know, there is a widespread im- 
pression in our country that almost the entire Jamaican population 
is caught up in an endemic marihuana binge — that all Jamaicans 
are on ganja. 

Your statement suggests this is very much exaggerated. If I 
understood you correctly, you estimate the percentage of the popula- 
tion on ganja to be somewhere between 3 percent and 9 percent, 
based on your continuing study of the hospital population. 

Dr. Hall. That is correct, sir. 

The impression of widespread use is created mainly by the public- 
ity given to visitors from North America who have found Jamaica 
a "loous classicus" for obtaining and smoking ganja. 

Mr. Martin. The tourists have no trouble getting ganja and mari- 
huana in Jamaica? 

Dr. Hall. None whatever, and frequently get into trouble with the 

Mr. Martin. And ganja has no serious trouble getting from 
Jamaica into the United States? As you know, there is an increasing 
amount coming into our country. 


Dr. Hall. There is a well-established traffic. 

Senator Gurnet. Incidentally, on that question, Dr. Hall, my 
State is the State of Florida. One of the principal sources of flow 
into Florida is Jamaica, this is a well-known fact. Is your govern- 
ment doing anything to interdict this flow of marihuana into 

Dr. Hall. Yes, I am in a position to speak of that. The Govern- 
ment is taking the most stringent measures to intercept international 
shipments coming by private aircraft and presently there are some 
very serious cases before the courts at this moment. 

Senator Gurney. They are making a good effort to try to stop 
Dr. Hall. Very much so, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Gurnet. Thank you. 

Mr. Martin. Jamaican marihuana is pretty good stuff, as they 
say. It is supposed to be substantially stronger than Mexican mari- 
huana, is that correct? 

Dr. Hall. That has generally been said, but I have myself no 
figure as to the quantum of THC in our ganja. 

Mr. Martin. The fact that Jamaica has a relatively large popula- 
tion of chronic smokers, perhaps not as an overall percentage but 
you have a population of chronic smokers going back many years, 
this affords certain advantages in studying the long-term impact of 
chronic marihuana smoking? 
Dr. Hall. Decidedly so. 

Mr. Martin. You may be aware, Dr. Hall, of a recent study which 
has been reported on in the American press, a study done in Jamaica 
funded by the National Institute for Mental Health. This study, as 
you know, came up with the nearest thing to a clean bill of health 
that has yet been published — no change in functional ability, no 
change in respiratory function, no change in chromosomes — the 
nonsmokers suffered more chromosome damage than the smokers — no 
change in brainwave patterns, nothing at all. 
Do you know anything about this study? 
Dr. Hall. Yes, I am familiar with it. 

Mr. Martin. Do the implications of this study — well, from what 
you have said here, the implications certainly do not conform to your 
own experience with thousands of marihuana smokers? 
Dr. Hall. That is correct. 

The study to which you refer does not have the general support 
of experienced clinicians and other workers in the field. We believe 
that the selection with which the study was done was faulty and that 
in regard to the reported absence of any change in the chromosome 
pattern that their technique was faulty and that certainly as regards 
the statement that there was no respiratory effect, it is unfounded. 

Mr. Martin. From your experience and contacts you believe that 
the great majority of doctors in Jamaica who have had actual ex- 
perience with marihuana smokers — ganja smokers — are convinced 
that it has a substantial negative effect? 
Dr. Hall. That is correct. 
Mr. Martin. Thank you very much. 
I have no further questions. 


Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I respect- 
fully suggest that the study which was the subject of the last ques- 
tion has not been identified for the record. It is not the usual thing, 
as the Chair knows, for the committee to shoot arrows into the air. 
If the witness credits a study, the record ought to show what the 
study is. 

Senator Gurnet. Could you identify the study, Dr. Hall? 

Dr. Hall. The study about which I was speaking was a study 
mounted by Professor Beaubrun, Vera Rubin and Comitas. 

I believe they were funded by one of your national agencies. 

Senator Gurnet. When was the study made? 

Dr. Hall. It was reported in 1972 and serialized in our national 

Senator Gurnet. Do you know how long they spent on this study ? 

Dr. Hall. Some months in 1971. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Dr. Hall. 

Dr. Hall. Thank you. 

Senator Gurnet. Our next two witnesses are Dr. Harold Kolan- 
sky and Dr. William Moore of Philadelphia, who are psychiatrists 
who have worked as a team in studying the effects of marihuana 
chronic users and they have coauthored a series of articles in the 
medical journals on this subject. 

As I understand they are going to testify as a team today. 

There wasn't time for the committee to receive your biographical 
statements, Dr. Kolansky and Dr. Moore, so I wonder if for the 
record, you could state your qualifications. 



Dr. Kolanskt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. First of all, would you state your name? 

Dr. Kolanskt. My name is Harold Kolansky, and I have a doctor 
of medicine degree from Georgetown University School of Medicine 
in this city, 1948. 

I interned at the Walter Reed Army Hospital 1948 to 1949, and 
had residency in psychiatry at the Veterans Hospital in the Phila- 
delphia area and in several of the medical schools. After the 1949 
period I also served in the armed services as a captain, and psy- 
chiatrist and chief of psychiatry for the Fourth Field Army 
Hospital in Korea during the Korean conflict, and was at that time 
also chief psychiatrist to the Eighth Army Surgeon. 

Subsequently, I was at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in 
Philadelphia while also in private practice from the year 1952 and 
continued in the private practice of psychiatry and child psychiatry 
and psychoanalysis since that time. 

I was director of child psychiatry from 1955 until 1969 at the 
Albert Einstein Medical Center and was chairman of the depart- 
ment of psychiatry there from 1968 to 1969. 

I have been twice president of the Regional Council of Child 
Psychiatry, most recently a year ago, and that embraced the Penn- 


sylvania, southeastern New Jersey and Delaware communities of 
child psychiatrists, and currently am chairman of the Continuing 
Education Committee and a council member of the American 
Academy of Child Psychiatry. I am certified in psychiatry and in 
child psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neu- 
rology and have the equivalent of certification through the American 
Psychoanalytic Association in both child and adult psychoanalysis. 

I am currently associate professor of psychiatry at the University 
of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and simultaneously chairman 
of the Curriculum Committee on Child Analysis of the Institute 
of Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis where I also teach. 
In the last 9 years in the private practice of psychiatry and in 
hospital work as well, Dr. Moore and I have been collaborating in 
our observations on marihuana in our practices with patients who 
have come to us and we will have more on that in our prepared 

If I may suggest. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Moore would give his back- 
ground and curriculum, following which Dr. Moore would give the 
first half of our prepared statement and then I would give the 
second half. 

Senator Gurxey. That is fine. 

One other question, Doctor, have you been the author or coauthor 
of scientific or medical articles in your career? 

Dr. Kolaxskt. I didn't hear your last word, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Gurnet. Have you been the author or coauthor of scien- 
tific or medical articles or papers? 
Dr. Kolanskt. Yes, sir. 

I have been the author of some 40 clinical and research papers m 
psychiatry, child psychiatry, and psychoanalysis. Of these five have 
been coauthored with Dr. Moore on the subject of marihuana. 

One is in press, four have already been published, and additionally 
Dr. Moore and I have collaborated on other subjects within the 
field of psychiatry and psychoanalysis which have been published. 
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Moore, would you give your background and qualifications 
and then proceed with your statement. 

Dr. Moore. I am William T. Moore, a doctor of medicine, gradu- 
ated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1947. I have been a 
practicing psychiatrist and psychoanalyst since 1950. I am certified 
in both adult* and child psychiatry by the American Board of Neu- 
rology and Psychiatry. I am a qualified psychoanalyst, in the 
practice and treatment of children and adults as well as study in 
clinical research. 

I've been on the full faculty of the Institute of Philadelphia As- 
sociation of Psychoanalysis since 1960. I have been the director of 
training for the past 5 years for the division of child analysis at the 
Institute of Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis, I have 
been associate professor in child psychiatry in the Hahnemann 
Medical College for 13 years up until 1972, and presently associate 
professor in clinical psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania 
School of Medicine. 


I have coauthored and authored a number of scientific papers, 
some with Dr. Kolansky and some alone. Since 1964, I have been 
quite intensely interested in and actively studying as well as treating 
adolescents and young adults involved in drug use and particularly 
involved in marihuana use and abuse. 

I have been particularly interested in the psychological effects of 
adolescent involvement, and the mental functioning in young adults 
as a result of marihuana use. 

Mr. Martin. Dr. Moore, may I suggest that you move the micro- 
phone a bit closer and raise your voice a bit so the audience can hear 

Dr. Moore. Closer, like that ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes. 

Dr. Moore. I have been in active clinical study with Dr. Harold 
Kolansky for the past 10 years on this marihuana issue. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to 
present a summary of our psychiatric findings in those who use 

You are already familiar with Dr. Olav J. Braenden's work and 
statement to this subcommittee on September 18, 1972. Based on his 
laboratory, and coordinating work for the United Nations, and on 
his direct contact with Drs. Paton, Rafaelson, Miras, and Salamink, 
all of whom were doing current research on cannabis, he stated that 
among scientists working in the field, the consensus was that can- 
nabis is dangerous. He also said that as more scientific data accumu- 
lated, the knowledge of the potential dangers increases. 

He indicated that contrary to former views, there are at least 50 
substances in cannabis — and he implied that many of them could 
be toxic. He quoted the work of Dr. Campbell and his colleagues, 
who showed rather definitively the result of cerebral atrophy in 
young, chronic marihuana smokers. We would add that the skull 
X-rays showing the enlarged ventricles — due to atrophy — of these 
patients in the Campbell article, are vividly dramatic. We would 
also like to add that, the British journal, Lancet — December 4, 
1971 — editorialized Campbell's work, and said. 

The paper by Dr. Campbell and his colleagues in this issue deserves careful 
scrutiny . . . The atrophy is significant, and the difference from the normal air 
encephalogram entirely justifies the authors' description and diagnosis. 

We concur with Dr. Braenden and the other investigators, and are 
convinced that marihuana smoking carries enormous risks of phys- 
ical and mental damage. In our four published and a fifth currently 
in press clinical papers on marihuana use we have spelled out the 
psychiatric findings, and offered an hypothesis on its toxic effects on 
the brain. 

In an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Associa- 
tion — JAMA, October 2, 1972, volume 222 1 — concerning our work, 
the editor said. 

Uncertainty about the potential dangers of marihuana usage prevails among 
physicians and others. There are some * * * who contend that the drug's 
psychotropic effects are no more serious — perhaps less serious — than those of 
alcohol, and that, since alcoholic beverages are sold throughout the United 
States, sale of marihuana should be legalized. 


In this issue of the Journal p. 35, Kolansky and Moore report 
observations on 13 patients who had smoked marihuana or hashish 
intensively for periods from 16 months to 6 years. All manifested 
severe symptoms of cerebral toxic reaction that disappeared within 3 
to 24 months after cessation of drug use. 

Spokesmen who espouse tolerance toward "occasional" or "moder- 
ate" use of marihuana should be mindful of the possibility that, for 
whatever reasons, occasional may become "frequent" and moderate 
may become "intensive," with forbidding; consequences. Moreover, 
if sale of marihuana were legalized, would hashish — a much more 
potent form of cannabis be far behind ? * * * 

If marihuana ever were given the same legal status as alcoholic 
beverages, nothing could be said except "Buyer beware." 

Exactly 3 years ago today on May 17, 1971, we presented a report 
to the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. At that 
time we presented our findings on a 5-year clinical study of 38 
patients, ages 13 to 24 showing that marihuana alone caused serious 
psychological and neurological effects. We told the Commission that 
marihuana and hashish have a chemical effect that produces a brain 
syndrome marked by distortion of perceptions and reality. 

This leads to an early impairment of judgment, a diminished at- 
tention and concentration span, a slowing of time sense, difficulty 
with verbalization, and a loss of thought continuity characterized 
by a flow of speech punctuated with non sequiturs, which leaves the 
listeners puzzled. In time, the chronic smoker develops a detached 
look as decompensation of his ego or character occurs. 

In the last 9 years we have seen hundreds of patients who have 
suffered psychiatric and neurological symptoms as a result of mari- 
huana use, and have described the findings in almost 60 of these 
patients, in our publications. 

Senator Gurney. You mentioned decompensation of his ego oc- 
curs. Would it be better perhaps for a layman like me to say the 
disintegration of himself as a human being? 

Dr. Moore. A disintegration of his character. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you. 

Dr. Moore. Although we described the deleterious effects of can- 
nabis use on adolescent personality development in psychological 
terms when we spoke to the National Commission, even then we 
stressed our clinical hypothesis that psychic changes were a result of 
a chemical damage to the cerebral cortical cells. 

We further indicated that the symptoms described by us should 
not be confused with the usual psychological phenomena, character- 
ized as either developmental changes or psychological aberrations. 
All the individuals studied showed some uniformity of symptom 
response which to us implied that a common toxic agent — cannabis — 
was responsible for the observed reaction. We also considered the 
possibility that similar reactions might occur in any one who inten- 
sively used cannabis for an extended period of time. We said at that 

During tlte past six years we have seen a clinical entity different from the 
routine syndromes usually seen in adolescents and young adults. Long and 


careful diagnostic evaluation convinced us that this entity is a toxic reaction 
in the central nervous system due to regular use of marihuana and hashish. 

Contrary to what is frequently reported, we have found the effect of mari- 
huana to be not merely that of a mild intoxicant which causes a slight 
exaggeration of usual adolescent behavior, but a specific and separate clinical 
syndrome unlike any other variation of the abnormal manifestations of adoles- 
cence. We feel there should be no confusion, because regardless of the under- 
lying psychological difficulty, mental changes — hallmarked by disturbed aware- 
ness of the self, apathy, confusion and poor reality testing — will occur in an 
individual who smokes marihuana on a regular basis whether he is a normal 
adolescent, an adolescent in conflict, or a severely neurotic individual. 

We were very disappointed in the ambivalent report made by the 
National Commission, after 2 years of hearings and study, in which 
inadequate attention was paid to the clear evidence presented by in- 
vestigators to the effect that cannabis is retained in brain and other 
tissue, is toxic and may cause irreversible brain damage. We also 
believe that the right of the public to be educated to these toxic 
effects is long overdue, and that the Commission failed to organize 
this effort. 

With increasing frequency, we were seeing adults who also smoked 
marihuana, and who developed changes in personality believed to be 
due to toxicity we described in JAMA on October 2, 1972 

Mr. Martin. That is the Journal of the American Medical 
Association ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes, sir. 

We described 13 adults between the ages of 20 and 41 years, all of 
whom smoked cannabis products intensively — 3 to 10 times per 
week — for a period of 16 months to 6 years. They all demonstrated 
symptoms that simultaneously began with cannabis use and disap- 
peared within 3 to 24 months after cessation of drug use. 

In addition, a correlation of symptoms was observed in relation 
to the duration and frequency of smoking. When coupled with the 
stereotyped nature of the symptoms regardless of psychological 
predisposition, a consideration of biochemical and structural changes 
in the central nervous system — possibly cerebral cortex — as a result of 
intensive cannabis use seemed to be in order. We said it would appear 
that the present medical and public approach to education regarding 
the danger of marihuana use should undergo some reassessment. 

In that article we tentatively classified our findings as follows : 

1. Biochemical change. Those cases in which symptomatology 
indicated less chronic or less intensive use of cannabis or both, and 
the patients developed total remission of symptoms within a 6-month 
period following the termination of drug use. 

2. The second group would be those with biochemical change with 
suspected structural change. Those cases in which symptomatology 
indicated chronic intensive cannabis use; then upon termination of 
drug use, only partial remission of symptoms were evident after 6 
months but no residual symptoms were found after 9 months. 

3. Biochemical change with possible structural change — those cases 
in which symptomatology indicated chronic intensive cannabis use; 
then upon termination of drug use, partial remission of svmptoms 
occurred after 6 months and residual symptoms were still present 
after 9 months or more. 


Dr. Kolansky will take it from there. 
Senator Gurney. Dr. Kolansky. 
Dr. Kolansky. Thank you, Dr. Moore. 

Amon^ the symptoms shown by most of our patients, are those 
we described in 1972. 

With a history of regular marihuana or hashish use — 3 to 10 or 
more times a week — the individual was characteristically apathetic 
and sluggish in mental and physical responses. There was usually a 
loss of interest in personal appearance and a goallessness. 

Considerable flattening of affect — emotion — at first gave an im- 
pression of calm and well-being so that the patient seemed to be at 
peace with himself and the world. This was usually accompanied 
by his own conviction that he had recently developed an emotional 
maturity and insight that was aided by or even a result of his 
generous use of cannabis. Having found his "true self," he claimed 
that his aggression, ambition, and life goals no longer needed to 
follow those of the mainstream of society. We considered this to be 
a defensive use of denial and reaction formation in order to avoid 
an outbreak of aggression due to diminished stability in his person- 
ality organization. 

His pseudoequanimity was easily disrupted when his personality 
change, new philosophies, and drug consumption were questioned by 
old acquaintances or by family members. Also if anyone posed a 
threat to his supply of cannabis his peaceful facade quickly gave 
way to irritability or outbursts of irrational anger frequently ac- 
companied by vituperative verbal attack or sullen petulance. 

Many of those we examined were physically thin and often ap- 
peared so tired that they simulated the weariness and resignation of 
some of the aged. All appeared older than their chronological age 
by appearance, and an impression that was sometimes reinforced by 
slow physical movement. We thought such slow motion resulted from 
a combination of an emotional lethargy and a slowing of the sense 
of time ; this latter effect had been cited previously by Melges, et al., 
as also contributing to mental confusion in cannabis smokers. 

Frequently our patients complained of tiredness, sleeping during 
the day, and wakefulness at night which seemed similar to the 
reversal of sleep cycle referred to by Dr. Campbell and others as a 
symptom of cerebral organicity. 

Mr. Martin. By organicity you mean organic damage? 
Dr. Kolansky. Organic damage in the brain. 
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Kolansky. The "symptoms of mental confusion, slowed time 
sense. Difficulty with recent memory, and the incapability of com- 
pleting thoughts during verbal communication that resulted in con- 
fused responses, seemed to imply some form of organic change either 
of an acute biochemical nature as noted in cases with shorter 
histories of cannabis use or, one might hypothesize, structural en- 
cephalopathy when found in cases with prolonged heavy marihuana 

Mr. Martin. Again encephalopathy means pathological damage to 
the brain ? 

Dr. Kolansky. That is correct, sir. 


We are certain that these symptoms cannot be explained simply 
on the basis of psychological predisposition. Headaches, also de- 
scribed by Campbell and his coworkers were common. In one of our 
cases — not reported in this series — the marihuana syndrome masked 
a severe obsessional neurosis that was present before marihuana syn- 
drome masked a severe obsessional neurosis that was present before 
marihuana use, then reappeared after cessation of drug use. During 
marihuana toxicity, his obsessional thinking and compulsive be- 
havior were minimal and secondary to the stereotyped symptoms 
described above. 

We said in 1972 in the Journal of the American Medical Associa- 

The intensity of symptoms and the presence of delusional content during use 
of the drug seemed directly related to the frequency and length of time that 
cannabis had been used. There also seemed to be some relationship between 
symptom intensity and the strength of the drug that was used. Those who 
smoked hashish seemed to be more symptomatic. The length of time necessary 
for the remission of symptoms also appeared to be directly related to the 
duration and frequency of smoking. 

In addition, the presence of residual symptoms 9 months after the use of 
cannabis was stopped showed some relationship of the symptom residual to the 
duration and frequency of exposure. 

Lemberger and others at the National Institute of Mental Health have shown 
that chemical constituent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol is maintained in the brain 
and other organs of humans for up to 8 days after ingestion. Mclsaac and his 
coworkers in 1971 showed with isotope labeled cannabis that concentration of 
the drug occurred in the frontal lobes and cortice of monkeys. Campbell and 
his coworkers in 1971 have pointed out that findings that indicate the fat 
solubility of cannabis derivatives makes it likely that the accumulation of this 
drug in nervous tissue would thereby cause a cumulative chemical effect. This 
cumulative effect seemed to be demonstrated clinically by those cases in this 
report who had relatively brief histories of smoking cannabis. 

In these individuals the biochemical effect is less likely to be confused by 
later structural change. During the period of time between cessation of drug 
use and symptom remission, those symptoms present are probably due to the 
effect of accumulated chemical effect rather than structural changes. In addi- 
tion, a number of patients, all told of sometimes feeling some of the effects 
of cannabis for several days after their last smoke. 

Rosenkrantz, et al., indicated that in the brain tissue of rats examined, there 
was a consistent severe loss of brain protein and cell component RNA that play 
basic roles in brain functioning. 

The occurrence of a stereotyped group of symptoms unrelated to psycho- 
logical predisposition in a number of individuals following chronic and exten- 
sive cannabis use seems to us to at least imply the possibility of a similar 
biochemical application in humans. In those cases where symptomatology, 
though diminished, was still present 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year after drug 
withdrawal raises an important possibility of more permanent structural 
changes in the cerebral cortex, such as reported by Campbell, et al., all of whom 
smoked 3 or more years and all of whom showed radiologic evidence of cerebral 

In the last 2 years, we have seen much additional marihuana 
smoking in two particular groups — those in junior high school, and 
those in the 20 to 40 year group. In the younger group our concern 
for impairment of adolescent development is strong. We said even in 
1971 in our acticle in the Journal of the American Medical Associa- 
tion, and I quote : 

Clearly, there is, in our patients, a demonstration of an interruption of 
normal psychological adolescent growth processes following the use of mari- 


huana ; as a consequence, the adolescent may reach chronological adulthood 
without achieving adult mental functioning or emotional responsiveness. 

One month ago, April 18, 1974, a paper in the New England 
Journal of Medicine, "Depression of Plasma Testosterone Levels 
After Chronic Intensive Marihuana Use," by Dr. Kolodny and his 
group gave additional cause for concern in the older age group, and by 
implication in the adolescent age group as well, when the authors 
described 20 heterosexual men 18 to 28 years of age who used mari- 
huana at least 4 days weekly for 6 or more months, who showed 
decreased testosterone levels that were dose related. Six of 17 men — 
35 percent — showed a marked drop of sperm count, with the count 
being lowest in those who smoked most. 

In addition to temporary sterility, these authors described two 
subjects who were also impotent. The authors caution about mari- 
huana use in pregnant women, since delta-9 THC can cross the pla- 
cental barrier, and so possibly depress fetal testosterone levels during 
critical stages of sexual differentiation. They also express concern 
about a delay in a completion of puberty in the prepubertal young- 
ster who smokes. 

In concluding our prepared statement, we would like to para- 
phrase and add to a series of recommendations offered to the original 
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 3 years ago. 
In our opinion these recommendations are even more applicable 

First, on education : The National Institute of Mental Health, and 
other responsible mental health agencies, and medical associations 
should coordinate a large-scale educational effort to inform the 
public of the serious implications of marihuana use. The press and 
the networks can aid immensely in this effort. There is at this time 
enough information to bring equivocation to a halt. The public can 
learn that marihuana alone causes serious psychological and neu- 
rological effects. 

In our view, unless the marihuana problem is brought under better 
control, it is unlikely that we will be able to influence effectively the 
hard-drug problem and the growing number of individuals who 
show long lasting and even permanent effects of damage due to mari- 
huana smoking. All schools, particularly elementary schools, should 
introduce or improve programs of instruction on marihuana to aid 
preventive efforts. Measures to control the flow of marihuana must 
be increased. 

Regarding research: Further research on the neurological effects 
of marihuana in humans should be continued, as should psychophar- 
macological effects on animals and man. Additional clinical studies 
should be reported. 

In view of the seriousness of chronic marihuana cough, respiratory 
studies should be continued to determine marihuana's effects on other 
body systems, including circulatory, renal, and digestive, hormonal 
and reproductive. 

There is a need for continuing research on all quantitative and 
qualitative aspects of the effect of marihuana on the body system. 

Psychoanalytic and psychiatric research on the interferences in 
mental function, education, and development should continue. 


Studies on recurrence of marihuana effects should be carried out. 

Regarding legalization and issues of public health: We view 
marihuana to be a public health hazard. We also believe that tne 
Government has a role in protecting public health. Therefore, logic- 
ally the Government should not legalize marihuana and should con- 
tinue to prevent the importing, manufacturing, advertising, and sale 
of all cannabis products. 

Many individuals notable in fields other than medicine have ad- 
vocated legalization of the sale of cannabis. Their opinions are not 
based on the clinical examination of those who use marihuana, but 
on hearsay, questionnaires, testimonials, and a misapplication of 
knowledge. They do a disservice to our young. 

Distinguished members of the subcommittee, this completes our 
formal testimony and we will be happy to entertain questions. 

Mr. Sourwine. Sir, may I ask one or two questions about what 
you two have just read ? 

You told of a man with a severe obsessional neurosis who, during 
or immediately after smoking, while he had marihuana toxicity, 
showed minimal symptoms of obsessional thinking and compulsive 
behavior and symptoms which were secondary as to what you called 
the stereotyped marihuana symptoms. 

I am not clear and I think it would be helpful if the record were 
clear. Of the obsessional neurosis in the stereotyped marihuana 
symptoms which is preferable if there is any preferable ? 

Dr. Kolansky. Mr. Counsel, may I turn that question over to Dr. 
Moore since that patient was a patient of Dr. Moore's ? 

Dr. Moore. Actually the purpose of mentioning that is that we 
have so frequently found individuals who would appear for psy- 
chiatric evaluation would have the stereotyped group of symptoms 
that we felt had grown to be so typically marihuana syndrome and 
after we would encourage the patients to stop smoking and to com- 
pletely rid themselves of drug use we found that they would develop 
old neurotic patterns. 

I would think that of the two, if you press me as to which would 
be better, I think it might be better to be neurotic than it would be 
to have organic brain damage or structural change as a result of 
chronic marihuana use. 

Mr. Sourwine. Doctor, I did not understand that you testified 
that this man was not neurotic, but simply that his system were 
overridden by the marihuana syndrome. 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. He was obsessionally neurotic all the time ? 

Dr. Moore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. He did have what you might call an apparent 
remission because it was overriden by the sysmptoms, but it was not 
a true remission, was it? 

Dr. Moore. No, it was not a true remission, but because of the 
change in his whole method of operation in life duo to the marihuana 
use, it was no longer obvious to the world nor to himself. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is it fair then to say that marihuana warps and it 
will warp even a man who is already warped — it superimposes its 
own warp? 


Dr. Moore. Yes, sir, I would say that. I would say it is an organic 
injury on an already psychological insult. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other questions. 

Would you prefer that I defer them until 

Senator Gurnet. Go right ahead, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. You told us of slow motion resulting from a com- 
bination of an emotional lethargy and slowing of the sense of time. 
Am I correct in understanding that is a case when slow seemed fast 
to the subject? 

Dr. Kolansky. Often times there is a distortion mentally of the 
sense of time in the marihuana smoker. Patients, one patient, for 
example, told me of an experience of beginning to smoke at 4 o'clock 
one afternoon and he knew that because he had just looked at his 
watch because a companion had asked him the time, and the next 
thing he knew, though he said he was not asleep, his Avatch registered 
as 9 o'clock in the evening. He thought only a very short period of 
time had elapsed, and he was startled to find that some 5 hours had 
elapsed, so that is one aspect of the distortion of time that goes on. 

But we were also describing a kind of slow motion movement and 
thinking and lack of alertness that has perhaps an additional im- 
plication which to us has an organic ring in the sense that the indi- 
vidual cannot really, cannot continue to function in a steadily orga- 
nized and time-related fashion. 

Often that individual is not aware of that slowing of effort, of 
time, of thinking. 

Mr. Sourwine. I had a question just on that point to follow this, 
but to complete this question, did you ever find any instance of a 
change in the time sense the other way, where marihuana appeared 
to accelerate the time sense so that to the smoker everything seemed 
to be very slow or dreamy? 

Dr. Moore. I could give a clinical example that would pretty much, 
from what I have seen, prove the opposite. 

A young individual who was driving down one of the expressways 
had to gradually keep over to the right-hand side because he felt that 
the traffic was moving faster than he could keep track of mentally. In 
other words, he felt that the external world was moving more rapidly 
than he could handle. Finally, he became so anxiety-ridden, so ter- 
rified that he pulled over to the side of the road and waited for a 
period of time until he felt safe enough to pull back out into the flow 
of traffic, until he could get off of the expressway. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is again a slowing of the time-sense. 

Dr. Moore. I feel that in one of the things that contributes to the 
slowing of the time-sense is the inability of the individual to coordi- 
nate things as rapidly as he might be able to without the chemical 

In other words, as things happen ordinarily, an individual can 
connect those things and move right along with it. 

I think with the chronic use of cannabis something happens. He 
is not able to hold on to all of the observations and perceptions, syn- 
thesize them as rapidly and then act upon them. He has to slow down. 

Mr. Sourwine. Well, if a man's time-sense slows and he moves in 


what is to him a habitual rate, he will actually be moving to the ob- 
jective viewer much slower than usual, will he not? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And this is what you say happens with the mari- 
huana smoker? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. It does not actually speed up their time-sense so 
that they have more time to see what goes on. It is exactly the reverse. 

Dr. Moore. But they report the opposite. 

Mr. Sourwine. But they think that they are seeing movement, is 
that right? 

Dr. Moore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now that brings me to the earlier mention that you 
made of this. 

You spoke of the flattening of affect, giving it first an impression 
of calm and well-being and accompanied by the smoker's own con- 
viction that he had recently developed an emotional maturity and 
insight. And his conclusion is that his drive and ambition and life 
goals no longer needed to follow those of the mainstream of society. 

Would it be fair to paraphrase that and say that marihuana makes 
both dropouts and copouts ? 

Dr. Kolanskt. Mr. Counsel, I think that would be correct in many, 
not all. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

I think by implication of the previous answer it has been answered 
but I would like to ask it for the record. Earlier in your statement 
you told us of the combination effects of marihuana — that there was 
an early impairment of judgment, a diminished. attention in concen- 
tration span and a slowing of the time-sense, difficulty with verbaliza- 
tion and a loss of thought continuity characterized by a flow of speech 
punctuated by non sequiturs which, if I understand correctly, means 
punctuated by statements that did not flow one from the other. The 
man, in other words, was speaking disconnectedly. He was speaking 
nonsense or perhaps as we say in Washington, "gobbledygook." 

Would that be correct ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. But he did not, if I understand the implications of 
your testimony correctly, he did not himself realize that he was 
speaking "gobbledygook," that he was failing to communicate. He 
thought in his own mind that he was being very fluent and very wise 
and perhaps even philosophical in his expressions. 

Would this be correct ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Kolansky. Mr. Counsel, to add a point to that, one of the 
common things that we hear from patients who have engaged fre- 
quently in marihuana parties or in social marihuana smoking is the 
impression that communication is vastly increased between the group 
who are smoking. Only after the individuals have been some distance 
removed from the smoking of marihuana, when they have ceased 
smoking, do they later report that they feel that their thinking was 
absolutely incorrect, that, in fact, those parties were many times vac- 
uous and self-centered exercises in speech at times, but not com- 


Mr. Sourwine. Would this be like a man who has a dream in which 
he invents something miraculous or makes a world-shaking speech 
and may actually rise in his slumber half asleep, make notes on it, 
and in the morning the notes are completely unintelligible? 

Dr. Kolansky. That is a reasonable analogy. 

Mr. Sourwine. These are people who think they are communicat- 
ing and think they are achieving a rapport, and the only rapport they 
actually achieve is the rapport of common confusion. 

Dr. Kolansky. That is correct. 

Mr. Sottrwine. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurney. Just a few general questions, Dr. Kolansky and 
Dr. Moore. 

It is my understanding from your studies and your testimony that 
it is your opinion that marihuana is indeed a dangerous drug. Is 
that correct? 

Dr. Moore. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. And that the use of it — or the prolonged use of 
it, certainly — can have dramatic, harmful effects upon an individual, 
and there certainly is evidence that much of that effect may be per- 
manent damage — is that correct? 

Dr. Moore. That is our opinion. 

Senator Gurney. Another question: in your studies and observa- 
tions of the use of marihuana, is it your feeling that it is becoming 
more widespread in its use in our population ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. As a matter of fact, there have been recent com- 
ments and reports that are really repeats of things that I heard 3 or 
4 years ago and that is that the marihuana epidemic has crested and 
that now it is beginning to decline. I have not found that to be so in 
my clinical observations. As a matter of fact, what has been happen- 
ing in the past year is that there may be, and I say may be, and this 
with a large question mark, a decline on the college campus, but I 
have a hunch it is not so much a decline as it is an apathy about re- 
porting as to whether it (marihuana) is in use as much. There cer- 
tainly is no decline in the large suburban high schools and what has 
happened most recently or over the past year or 18 months, is that it 
is beginning to appear in the 6th and 7th grades ; in other words, the 
junior high schools. 

Senator Gurney. And that certainly is a new and recent event as 
far as you believe ? 

Dr. Moore. Well, the last 18 months. 
Senator Gurney. Yes. 

Dr. Moore. That period. 

Senator Gurney. I suppose that is even more dangerous because 
among that age group I do not suppose they are able to exercise 
the mature judgment perhaps that a college student can exercise. 

Dr. Moore. Not only that, but it will take away the very tools they 
will need for adolescent development. It diminishes their perceptions 
and the ability to utilize those perceptions and to synthesize them 
into a whole ; the ability to develop a character, to make new identifi- 
cations, is all taken away by the use of marihuana. 

In addition to that, he is not getting an education. If he smokes 
marihuana in the morning at 9 o'clock in the restroom, he is not likely 


to be able to absorb very much education the rest of the day, and 
that is more common than is generally realized in public and by 
parents and teachers as well. A youngster who smokes in the morn- ji 
ing can get through all day at school without ever being detected. 

Dr. Kolansky. Senator Gurney, on the same point, I would like to \ 
add for the record it is our view that marihuana use has really, as I 
Dr. Moore said, not at all disappeared but it has become more a part | 
of the fabric of the school and of society, so that it really is not 
talked about very much. I don't think marihuana is being used so j 
much in rebellion against society today as it was 6 or 7 years ago, but | 
it is simply being used, and I think one of the problems in this use is \ 
the fact that there has been thoroughly inadequate education on a i 
mass public basis. The efforts are really not being made. There are 
occasional reports here and there, but now there is another phenom- 
enon that should be noted. 

There is an increasing mention of alcoholism among our young 
people, which indeed is there, and we would take the view, a plague 
on both their houses, both alcohol and marihuana: but the current 
situation seems to be a pitch toward the drug epidemic is over, mari- 
huana is no longer a problem, we only have the problem of alcoholism. 
I think this is a tragic error in thinking, and I think the public must 
be informed that the epidemic has not crested and that it is an epi- 
demic and that here is a vast toxic effect from marihuana in the self. 

Senator Gurnet. That really is why I laid the basic premise with 
these questions because you touched upon the next point I wanted to 
make, and that is : is it not your opinion that the widespread impres- 
sion about marihuana, among lay, not medical people or scientists, 
is indeed that it is not a dangerous drug? Isn't this the widely ac- 
cepted opinion ? 

Dr. Kolanskt. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. Now then going on from there, I wanted to ask 
a couple of other questions on that, too, which puzzled me in your 
paper here. Taking them in chronological order, you mentioned that 
one of your papers was printed in the American Medical Association 
Journal and, as I understood it in the very same journal there was 
an editorial that, if it did not discount your paper entirely, at least 
refused to mention any of the serious points you made. Isn't that 

Dr. Moore. No. 

Dr. Kolanskt. No. 

Dr. Moore. That probably — there were two papers that were pub- 
lished in JAMA, that is the Journal of the American Medical Asso- 

Senator Gurnet. Yes. 

Dr. Moore. I read part of the editorial that accompanied the second 

Senator Gurnet. I see. 

Dr. Moore. Which laid stress on the organic effects. In the first 
paper we geared our attention toward the effects on the developing 
adolescent and we were trying to show at that time how it affects 
adolescent development adversely. 


Also, coincident all v, or accidentally — of course, we as psychoana- 
lysts do not believe in accidents — in the same journal there was an 
article, not by the editors but it was an additional article published 
by two, I think they were psychologists or Ph. D.'s in New York, on 
the whole matter of scientific investigation in medicine, in which they 
stated that you must have in every medical scientific investigation or 
any scientific investigation a cover group or a double blind study and 
so forth. 

We answered that in our second paper under the title of "Meth- 
odology", and we pointed out that in medical clinical investigation, 
whenever you have a new set of symptoms appearing on the scene 
that are unlike any other symptoms, and when you have in those in- 
dividuals who have this new set of symptoms some common factor, 
element or toxic drug, you then can begin to suspect that perhaps that 
drug has some cause on the effect. After a period of time, if you re- 
move what you suspect to be the causative factor and the symptoma- 
tology disappears and then later on, giving the drug again, the symp- 
tomatology reappears, then you can pretty safely assume — and this 
is common clinical medical practice that has gone on for centuries — 
you can assume that you have a new clinical entity. It remains after 
that to be proven in the laboratory and in other specialties of 

We pointed out at that time that this method did not mean that 
our results were any less scientific nor were they any less valid than 
the so-called double blind study. As a matter of fact, if we were to 
write a paper attacking double blind studies, we could tear them apart 
and show them how they can make plenty of mistakes with such a 
scientific method. That is probably where the misunderstanding came 
from. It was not an editorial, it was a coincidental article and, inci- 
dentally, it was the news media that picked it up and made the 

Senator Gurnet. I see. 

Dr. Moore. As though they were refuting what we had done, which 
was not true. 

Senator Gurnet. I see. 

Dr. Kolanskt. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, you may also be 
referring to our quotation from the editorial itself in the second ar- 
ticle in the Journal of the American Medical Association which was 
entitled "Buyer Beware." 

If the wording sounded ambivalent in the editorial to begin with, 
it was anything but ambivalent towards the end of it because the 
editor said, and I quote once more, "If marihuana ever were given 
the same legal status as alcoholic beverages nothing could be said 
except 'Buyer Beware'." 

Senator Gurnet. Another question on this business of the country 
not taking marihuana seriously was the report of the National Com- 
mission that you referred to here on page 4 and page 5. The National 
Commission— I forget what the title of it was— on Marihuana, wasn't 
it, Marihuana and Drug Abuse? Why do you think that they took so 
lightly this problem of smoking of marihuana as they did — and we 
all know they did — do you have any idea why ? 

Dr. Moore. We are just as puzzled today about it as you are, sir. 


We do not know why they did it. We were shocked when we saw the 
first reports that came out through the news media. Governor Shafer, 
before the television audience, and the repeated front page kind of 
item that practically gave marihuana sanction — and, of course, on 
reading the Marihuana Commission report it does no such thing. It 
actually states in the Marihuana Commission report that they dis- 
courage its use, and they certainly did not approve of legalization, 
and there are parts in the Commission's report that very clearly state 
that it affects adolescent development, that it should not be used by 
adolescents, and particularly discouraged use by them. But these parts 
were hidden. And we felt that where the Commission perhaps lost 
the day was that they did not, at least, give enough emphasis to the 
warnings, with the result that the report was highly ambivalent and, 
in our terms, it means you say one thing out of this side and the op- 
posite out of that side. 

You should say them both the same way. 

Senator Gurnet. Was there ample scientific and medical evidence 
presented to the Commission, or available at that time, which showed 
that the drug was a dangerous drug? 

Dr. Moore. I would hope so. 

They had access not only to what we said, but they had access to 
a number of other individuals in this country who have done work on 
it. They had access to Campbell's report. They even ignored that re- 
port, practically, and that was a very important report. 

Campbell even raised the question at that time as to whether the 
chronic use of hashish might in fact cause an epidemic of Parkin- 
sonism, which Dr. Hall referred to in his study this morning, and 
Dr. Campbell felt that the effect of cannabis on that area of the 
brain was. that, if destroyed, it will in later life develop into Parkin- 
sonism. He felt there was a certain correlation between the epidemic 
proportions of Parkinsonism in Nepal and the chronic use of hashish. 

Senator Gurnet. Is it fair to say — and here I must rely upon you 
because I am not familiar with the media treatment of the Commis- 
sion's report, I just recall very little about it, but I suspect you prob- 
ably paid attention to media reports — but how did they present the 
report, generally speaking, to the public? 

Dr. Kolanskt. Mr. Chairman, if I may take that, and maybe Dr. 
Moore will comment further, I feel it would be difficult for the media 
to select out the comments that Dr. Moore just summarized. I noted 
that last week in the prepared statement by Dr. Brill — who was a 
member of the Commission — in his statement here, that he indicated 
that the Commission strongly worded their feeling about the danger 
of marihuana. But I must submit that I think it would have been 
very difficult for the media to weed those aspects out. 

Moreover, we wrote to the Commission after we had testified, in- 
dicating that Campbell's report was now available. We sent a copy of 
the report to the Commission. We got a rather terse letter back in- 
dicating that they were aware of the Campbell work. To our knowl- 
edge it was not mentioned. On a Sunday morning 

Mr. Martin. May I ask you who sent this report to you, who sent 
this letter to you, for the Commission ? 

Dr. Kolanskt. I don't recall who it was, but it was sent from the 


I might also add that the news media were aware of Campbell's 
report and reported on it, and, in fact, on a — I think it was a Sunday 
morning, "Meet the Press' or one of the other major network pro- 
grams, in which they had a discussion with a member or members of 
the Commission. The reporters there present themselves brought up 
the Campbell work, and this was virtually promptly dismissed with 
the statement, "These people were all on other drugs and, therefore, 
the meaning of the toxicity of marihuana in the Campbell work is not 
of significance" — and I am paraphrasing here. But the people in the 
Campbell work were not all on other drugs. Some were. The one single 
uniform feature in those young patients who had cerebral atrophy 
was their smoking of marihuana from 3 to 11 years. So the Commis- 
sion, in our opinion, did ignore or play down certain findings, to our 

Senator Gtjrney. Is it fair to say, then, generalizing, of course, that 
the Marihuana Commission really misled the media in their presenta- 
tion of the dangerous aspects of the use of marihuana ? Is that a fair 
statement ? 

Dr. Kolansky. More charitably, I would simply indicate that, in 
the form in which it was written, it was difficult for the media to 
weed out what was significant. 

Senator Gtjrney. And as a result of that is it fair to say that the 
public — or there was an opportunity missed to inform the public of 
the dangerous aspects of the use of marihuana? 

Dr. Kolansky. We feel that way. 

Dr. Moore. To at least sound the early warning signal. 

Senator Gtjrney. And what our problem really is now and, of 
course, that is why this subcommittee is intensely interested in this, 
in bringing before it just about every eminent authority it can to 
present the results of their findings, is because we think the para- 
mount issue now is to present to the public the dangers of the use of 
marihuana so that they will understand. Perhaps parents and teach- 
ers or whoever has charge of influencing and guiding younger people 
can bring this to their attention. 

Don't you think this is something that we all need to do? 

Dr. Moore. Yes, sir, we do. 

Senator Gtjrney. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. May I ask one question following out the Chair- 
man's thought? 

Senator Gtjrney. Yes. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Would you say it is fair to describe what the Com- 
mission did as a Solomon-like decision ? They had a certain dichotomy 
among their membership, they wanted to go two ways, so they cut 
the baby down the middle and gave half to each side. 

Dr. Moore. I would say that is a fair statement. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Thank you. 

Senator Gtjrney. Well, thank you, Doctors, for your testimony. It 
certainly has been helpful. 

Our next witness is Dr. Bejerot. Dr. Bejerot, would you identify 
yourself for the record? 



Dr. Bejerot. I am Dr. Nils Bejerot from Karolinska Institute, 

Senator Gurnet. Let me ask, there was one missing when we be- 
gan — I believe you were sworn in, Dr. Bejerot. 

Let me ask you a few questions, Doctor, about your qualifications. 

You took your medical degree from the Karolinska Institute in 
Stockholm? ' 

Dr. Bejerot. Yes, in 1957. 

Senator Gurnet. And subsequently you trained as a psychiatrist 
at the Southern Hospital, the St. Goran Hospital in Stockholm from 
1957 to 1962? 

Dr. Bejerot. That is right. 

Senator Gurnet. And from 1958 up to the present you have served 
as a consultant psychiatrist to the Stockholm Police? 

Dr. Bejerot. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And in 1963 you studied epidemiology and medi- 
cal statistics at the London School of Hygiene, on a grant from the 
World Health Organization? 

Dr. Bejerot. That is right. 

Senator Gurnet. You have been involved in an intensive study of 
drug dependence for some 8 or 10 years now ? 

Dr. Bejerot. Something like that. 

Senator Gurnet. You are the author or coauthor of more than 130 
scientific papers ? 

Dr. Bejerot. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. And you are also the author of several books on 
drug addiction ? 

Dr. Bejerot. Yes. 

Senator Gurnet. Is it correct that your best known is "Addiction — 
An Artificially Induced Drive" ? 

Dr. Bejerot. I think that book is the most well known. 

Senator Gurnet. How many languages has this been translated 

Dr. Bejerot. I think four languages — five. 

Senator Gurnet. Is it fair to say that another work of yours, "Ad- 
diction and Society," is widely regarded as a standard text, or as the 
standard text, on the epidemiology of drug abuse ? 

Dr. Bejerot. I have been told so. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, you are very modest. 

Proceed with your statement, Doctor, and if you could make sure 
you get that microphone so you are talking directly into it. 

Dr. Bejerot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On the request of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, 
I am presenting here a summary statement of my views on the social 
and psychological effects of cannabis, and on the specific question of 
legalizing the sale and use of marihuana. 

The most important psychological complication of cannabis abuse- 
is addiction. An excellent illustration of this phenomenon was given 
by the Egyptian delegate at the Second International Opium Con- 
ference (1924), and is reprinted in the committee hearings of Sep- 


tember 18, 1972: "Notwithstanding the humiliations and penalties 
inflicted on addicts in Egypt, they always return to their vice." 

It is often declared that cannabis does not give rise to addiction. 
This is a misunderstanding which has arisen concerning the nature of 
addiction, and here I refer to my first appendix, "A Theory of Ad- 
diction as an Artificially Induced Drive," published in the American 
Journal of Psychiatry. 

The pharmacological and physiological phenomenon of tolerance, 
that is, the situation where an individual needs to increase his doses 
in order to obtain the same effects of the drug, and the so-called 
physical dependence connected with this, has been confused with ad- 
diction, which is synonymous with drug dependence or psychological 
dependence. Tolerance development only represents a temporary adap- 
tation of the body tissues to the drug taken. The distressing vegeta- 
tive or "physical" abstinence phenomena are experienced only in con- 
nection with drugs with a depressant effect on the central nervous 
system : Opiates, barbiturates, other sedatives and hypnotics, alcohol, 
solvents, et cetera, but are almost completely absent even in advanced 
abuse of drugs with a central stimulant effect — cocaine, ampheta- 
mines, phenmetraline, methylphenidate and hallucinogens such as 
mescaline, psilocybin, cannabis, LSD, et cetera. 

The physiological or "physical" abstinence reactions are easily 
handled and cured in a few days or weeks of adequate treatment, and 
do not give rise to problems of any medical significance. The main 
effect of the tolerance phenomenon is that it makes it extremely dif- 
ficult for an addict to break a period of drug taking. To cure drug 
tolerance or vegetative abstinence reactions is simple, to cure or even 
handle the addiction is extremely difficult. 

Thus, physical dependence is only an incidental metabolic compli- 
cation of certain kinds of drug taking, and is not included in a strict 
concept of addiction. All euphorising drugs, however, may give rise 
to psychological dependence or addiction, and this has, as already 
mentioned, the character of an artificially induced drive, in many 
cases far stronger than sexual drives. This theory has recently been 
supported by the experiments of a German team under Professor 
Roeder in 1974. They considered that if addiction had the character 
of an artificially induced drive, this drive or craving must have a 
special center in the brain. They found this center in the hypothala- 
mus region, and were able to put it out of action by the destruction 
of about 1 cubic millimeter of the tissue by the stereotactic method, 
and thereby put an end to the craving for the drug. In human ex- 
periments, largely carried out on addicted physician volunteers, sex- 
ual potency was affected, and this indirectly also supports the theory 
of the drive character of drug addiction. 

A serious complication of cannabis abuse seems to be chronic 
psychosis, that is, insanity, a condition which has long been recog- 
nized in areas where cannabis abuse is endemic. In the West it is 
often said that these cases reported as cannabis psychoses are actually 
schizophrenias. If the Committee has any doubts about the existence 
of chronic cannabis psychoses, it can initiate a simple investigation 
to illuminate the question. If the rates of schizophrenia among rela- 
tives of verified cases of schizophrenia are compared with those 


among relatives of persons with chronic cannabis psychoses, there 
will be a difference in these two rates if we are dealing with two dif- 
ferent conditions. This technique was used by Tatetsu, 1963, in Japan 
to prove that chronic amphetamine psychoses are of a different nature 
from schizophrenia. 

I will not go into details about acute cannabis intoxication, which 
is a well-known phenomenon, but a few words should be said on the 
amotivational syndrome. This is a massive and chronic passivity 
brought about by prolonged and intensive abuse of cannabis. In 
these cases there is a basically altered sense of reality, and a tendency 
to magical thinking. Intellectual deterioration, which may be irre- 
versible, and vagabondism commonly develop. 

The amotivational syndrome has been observed very late in the 
West. This phenomenon in the Middle and Far East was commonly 
interpreted as an expression of general debility, so called "Eastern" 
personality, et cetera. If cannabis effects are studied on persons who 
are already passive — as was the case in the La Guardia report, where 
persons under study were prisoners and unemployed — passivity may 
escape notice. 

In regard to legal aspects of illicit drugs, I would like to make 
some general remarks on drug epidemics before going into the spe- 
cial question concerning cannabis. 

In Stockholm at the end of the 1940's an epidemic of intravenous 
abuse of central stimulants arose in a little group of about a dozen 
intellectuals and bohemians. The number of abusers doubled roughly 
every 30th month for many years, and in 1965 there were about 4,000 
cases in Sweden, but none in the other Scandinavian countries. 

At the beginning of 1965 a campaign was waged in the Swedish 
mass media in favor of liberalizing drug policy regarding nonmedical 
use of narcotic and dangerous drugs. The arguments were on the 
same lines as in the present campaign for legalizing cannabis. 

Under pressure from this campaign the Swedish Board of Health 
permitted "by way of an experiment" the prescribing of dangerous 
drugs, both opiates and amphetamines, to a limited number of addicts 
for intravenous self -administration. 

During the 2 years from spring 1965 to spring 1967, when this 
prescribing activity took place in Sweden, the so-called legal addicts 
there were together about 200 persons, had a higher crime rate than 
they had had during a corresponding period prior to receiving their 
drugs legally [Lindberg 1969]. 

The records show that they were in receipt of health insurance and 
social welfare allowances on a larger scale and for longer periods than 
before this prescribing began ; they were unemployed more than pre- 
viously, although the situation on the labor market had not deterior- 
ated ; they even had a higher mortality rate than a comparable group 
of addicts who were not receiving drugs legally. 

In the summer 1967 every fourth intravenous abuser arrested in 
Stockholm said he had received drugs during this 2-year period from 
persons he knew to be legal addicts. Six months after the start of the 
experiment the addicts were receiving on an average twice the quan- 
tities of drugs as at the beginning, and after 2 years they were re- 
ceiving three times the initial amounts as calculated from the 10,000 
prescriptions we have checked these on. 


During the 2 years the experiment continued, the rates of abuse 
among arrestees in Stockholm rose more rapidly than during any 
other period, particularly among the youngest age group, those of 15 
to 19 years of age, where the rates rose from 6 percent injecting in 
1965 to 28 percent 2 years later. 

The rapid fluctuations in Swedish drug policy along a permissive- 
restrictive scale during the second half of the 1960's provided some- 
thing that may be justly described as an experimental situation. I 
have just completed a 400-page report on the covariation between 
rates of drug abuse among arrestees in Stockholm during the years 
1965-70 and drug policy during this period. Only intravenous drug 
abuse was studied, as only this form can be objectively and simply 
observed through needle marks on the arms; but there is no reason 
to believe that other forms of illicit drug abuse would vary in rela- 
tion to drug policy in another way than the intravenous form. 

Several investigations, for instance a comparison with a casefinding 
study which was one of the most extensive ever carried out anywhere, 
showed that the arrestees to a large extent were representative for the 
population of intravenous abusers known to the various authorities 
in Stockholm. 

The study comparing drug abuse and drug policy showed, that 
during a liberal and permissive period of drug policy, intravenous 
abuse accelerated. On a return to a traditional restrictive policy in 
1967 the acceleration was checked, and when an extrarestrictive pol- 
icy was introduced with a police offensive on the drug trade in 1969, 
the rates of abuse fell in this study. 

Even though the Swedish mass media have never admitted their 
responsibility for the permissive drug policy they launched and drove 
into effect, they have become very cautious on the drug question. 
There is no longer any articulate demand for a liberal cannabis 
policy in the Swedish mass media, although there is a large number 
of cannabis smokers in the country. The Swedish authorities are now 
unanimously against any further experiments with legal supplies of 
dangerous drugs. 

The illicit drug problem should be seen in the perspective of the 
dynamics of the spread of the drugtaking behavior. It is generally 
agreed nowadays that abuse of the type we are discussing here is a 
contagious condition spread from an abuser to a novice by direct 
personal contact. This process is called contagion in medicine, and 
peer pressure in sociology. 

In 1965 I introduced a sociomedical classification of addictions 
according to their mode of inception into three main types — 
appendix 2. 


These are the rather rare cases which have developed as complica- 
tions to medical treatment. These cases mainly affect middle aged 
people; they occur in all countries and at all periods; thus their dis- 
tribution is rather constant in time and place. 


These are the type we are discussing today. They usually affect 
young persons, and vary greatly in time and place. As already men- 

33-371 O - 74 - 13 


tioned they arise through case-to-case spread, and for that reason 
they may increase almost exponentially for long periods. This has 
been demonstrated concerning injections of central stimulants in 
Sweden — Bejerot 1970 — heroin in Britain, where the rates doubled 
every 16th month, 1958-68 — Bewley et al. 1968 — and the inception of 
cannabis smoking in five Danish towns, 1965-70 — Holstein 1972. 
Later the rate of increase falls and levels off, and the curves are 
mathematically of the so-called logistic or s-formed type. 


Here the drug has become accepted in society for pleasure and re- 
laxation. The whole population is then exposed to risk, and large 
groups of ordinary people become addicted to the drug. 

Examples of endemic addictions are cocainism among South Amer- 
ican Indians, opium smoking in Old China, cannabis smoking in the 
Middle East and alcoholism in the Christian part of the world. 

In the early stages of a drug epidemic only very deviant persons 
use the drugs, particularly if they must be obtained illicitly. As the 
epidemic spreads, more and more normal persons are drawn in, until, 
eventually, the drugs become socially accepted, and then perfectly 
average people use them : In fact it may then be deviant to refuse to 
use them. An endemic drug culture is extremely difficult to eradicate. 
The cannabis epidemic in America today seems to be perilously near 
to becoming endemic. Large sections of the mass media, on the basis 
of pharmacological data they were not in a position to judge, have 
declared that cannabis is harmless, and a suitable drug for young 
people. It requires no more than this to explain the explosive increase 
in cannabis abuse in the Western World today. 

The demand for legalizing cannabis has been strongest in those 
countries which have had the shortest experience and the weakest 
forms of the drug. Correspondingly, I consider that as a psychia- 
trist, one's attitude to cannabis becomes more negative the more one 
sees of its effects. 

Those who argue in favor of legalizing cannabis are also bound 
to consider whether legalization is also to include hashish and the far 
stronger, concentrated product, cannabis oil. Since tetrahydrocan- 
nabinol can now be synthesized, the supporters of legislation should 
also decide if the synthetic products are to be accepted, or only THC 
extracted from natural products. Since the potency of THC is com- 
parable to that of LSD, it would be logical to make a decision at the 
same time as to whether LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, et cetera, should 
be legalized. 

Intensive and frequent abuse of hallucinogenic drugs— mescaline, 
psilocybin, LSD and cannabis — seems to give rise to profound 
changes in the sense of reality, and this phenomenon does not appear 
to pass over when the individual is sober or when he stops taking the 
drugs. In this way the hallucinogens seem to be more dangerous to 
the mental functions than other groups of euphorizing drugs. 

If cannabis were legalized in the United States, this would prob- 
ably be an irreversible process not only for this country and this 
generation, but perhaps for the whole of Western civilization. As far 


as I can see another result would be a breakdown of the international 
control system regarding narcotics and dangerous drugs. 


There is no doubt that cannabis is an addicting drug, and that 
persistent and intensive cannabis smoking frequently gives rise to 
profound phenomena with passivity and change in the sense of reality 
as the most apparent signs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Martin. I have a few questions I would like to ask Professor 
Bejerot — and, also, I would want to suggest that you answer the 
questions as briefly as possible. We are very pressed for time ; we are 
going to have to get through with our next three witnesses in roughly 
an hour. So to our upcoming witnesses I would like to suggest that 
you cut your reading version roughly in half. The entire text will be 
inserted in the record as though you read it, in accordance with the 
chairman's opening ruling, and that will leave some time for ques- 
tions and we will be able to wind up by 1 o'clock approximately. 

Professor Bejerot, if I understood your statement, you differ with 
the concept that there is an important difference between "addiction" 
and what we call "drug dependence" in this country. Do you think 
this is a false distinction ? 

Dr. Bejerot. You see, at first I differentiate very sharply between 
drug abuse and drug dependence, but drug dependence according to 
my terminology is synonymous to drug addiction. 

I define addiction as an acquired, profound, and persistent fixation 
to certain strong and pleasurable sensations commonly produced by 
intake of euphorizing drugs. This fixation leads to a behavior of a 
compulsive character and much resembling natural drives as sexual- 
ity and sometimes replacing them, and I consider also such phenom- 
ena as, for instance, gambling and kleptomania are kinds of addic- 
tion, so you do not need drugs to produce addiction. And I also mean 
that sexual perversions, such as for instance, fetishism, seem to be 
more or less conditions of the same nature. 

And I would take the opportunity to add here, that drug addictions 
occur spontaneously in the animal world under natural conditions. 

Mr. Martin. Using your definition, Professor, there is no doubt in 
your mind that cannabis use can, and frequently does lead to 
addiction ? 

Dr. Bejerot. There is no doubt about that. 

Mr. Martin. It is widely argued, at least, it has been argued by 
some people, that cannabis does not result in psychotic conditions. 
But I think it is conceded even by people who have made this state- 
ment that where you have borderline cases — people who are weak 
psychologically — the use of cannabis can push them over the border, 
over the brink? 

Dr. Bejerot. I think that just the borderline cases are those in very 
great danger. We have an average of 1.5 percent schizophrenics in 
every society, and we have a few percent of borderline cases, so in a 
country of this size there are some millions of people who are in a 
very high risk for psychosis from marihuana or cannabis. 


Mr. Martin. So you have some millions of people in this country ; 
who, in your opinion, might become completely psychotic personal- 

Dr. Bejerot. Yes, who would be very susceptible. 

Mr. Martin. If they were exposed to cannabis ? 

Mr. Sourwine. May I ask one question for clarification? You i 
would not wish to be quoted, would you Doctor, to the effect that an j 
individual had no serious danger from the use of cannabis unless he j 
was already a borderline psychotic ? 

Dr. Bejerot. I would not say so. You see, it is always a question , 
of dose-response relations. But the personal susceptibility differs very j 
much in different individuals and for some individuals far less doses : 
are needed to result in a psychotic break. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is an ordinary person with no special medical edu- 
cation or experience competent to decide whether he is in danger from 
cannabis use ? 

Dr. Bejerot. No, the individual could not do that himself. 

Mr. Sourwine. No other questions. 

Mr. Martin. If cannabis does as much harm to the individual as 
your paper indicates, Professor, if there are hundreds of thousands 
or millions of young people in our country who are using it on a 
continuing basis, which we know to be a fact, wouldn't this suggest 
the possibility that, perhaps a decade or two from now, our society 
may find itself encumbered with a large population of partial crip- 
ples — of workers who have lost some of their functional ability, al- 
though they are functional at a lower level, and of partially crippled 
minds that would still operate, but again at a substantially lower 
level than they were capable of performing at before they were ex- 
posed to cannabis ? 

Dr. Bejerot. That is true. 

Mr. Martin. And wouldn't the same thing also apply to the physi- 
cal effects of cannabis which were described in yesterdays session by 
the panel of medical scientists which we brought together from va- 
rious parts of the United States and other countries? 

Dr. Bejerot. I have been mostly concerned with the psychological 
and psychiatric and social effects, and the physical effects I haven't 
studied personally. But I was impressed by the testimony given 

Mr. Martin. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. 

Professor Soueif, would you stand up, please, and hold up your 
right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give this 
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 
Dr. Soueif. I do. 

Senator Gurnet. Yours is a fairly short statement, Professor, and 
I think if you omitted the things in the parenthesis, we could get 
through all of it fairly rapidly. 

Let me first ask you some questions here to establish your qualifi- 
cations, and I will do this all in one question. 

It is my understanding you took your doctor of philosophy from 
Cairo University in 1954; you did postdoctoral research at the in- 
stitute of psychiatry, London University, 1955 and 1956; you have 


been on the faculty of Cairo University since 1962, first as an asso- 
ciate professor of psychology, and, since 1970, as a full professor; 
since October 1973 you have been chairman of the department of 
psychiatry and philosophy at Cairo University; at different times, 
you have been a guest researcher or guest professor at the institute 
of psychiatry, London University, the Max Planck Institute of Psy- 
chiatry in Munich, and the Lund University in Lund, Sweden ; from 
May 1968 to January 1971 you served in your government as Under 
Secretary of State for Culture; you are currently a member of the 
World Health Organization's Panel on Drug Dependence, and a 
member of the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board of the 
International Council on Alcohol and Drug Addictions? 

During the 1960's you produced a major study of the impact of 
the hashish epidemic on Egyptian society. This study, as I am told, 
is recognized as a classic in this field. You are also chairman of the 
Committee for the Investigation of Cannabis Consumption in Egypt. 

Are these statements I have made accurate to describe your back- 
ground ? 


Dr. Soueif. Correct, Mr. Chairman. 

If you may allow me for one single remark ; I thought I heard you 
saying that I am now the chairman of the department for psychiatry 
and philosophy, I think it is psychology and philosophy. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, it was philosophy here, yes. But it is psy- 
chiatry ? 

Dr. Soueif. Psychology and philosophy, not psychiatry. 

Senator Gurnet. We will make that correction in the record and 
we thank you for calling that to my attention. Proceed with your 

Dr. Soueif. It is an honor to have been invited to give my scientific 
opinion before this highly esteemed subcommittee on the subject of 
cannabis consumption. 

My colleagues and I have been working on the subject from Oc- 
tober 1957. Starting from 1967, I got in touch with American and 
European scientists who became interested in the field as cannabis 
taking was reported to have been gradually spreading in a number 
of Western societies. I was invited to participate in a number of meet- 
ings which were held at the WHO in Geneva and in various other 
places; for example, Rome, Helsinki, and London, where I had the 
opportunity to raise and discuss various relevant questions with com- 
petent scientists who had done significant work mostly in the area of 
cannabis and drug research. 

In my statement, I will have to bank most of the time on the work 
I did with my colleagues in Egypt. I will refer, however, whenever 
possible, to other investigators whose work sheds light on relevant 


A few points have to be made clear : 

a. I did all my work on regular long-term users. Most of the work 
reported in the literature has been carried out on short-term takers 


and the immediate effects of the drug. Some discrepancies between 
the two sets of findings may, therefore, be expected and could be in- 
terpreted in various ways. 

b. The main part of my work was done on prison inmates; those 
may differ in certain respects from ordinary citizens. However, in the 
absence of data pointing otherwise, the information we obtained 
might be given more weight than mere hunches or impressions, re- 
garding generalizability. 

c. Cultural differences between Egyptian takers and their Western 
counterparts, for whatever this might imply, should be taken into 


Our findings have been obtained by the use of two methods — 
Soueif, 1967; 1971: 

a. We carefully interviewed big numbers of takers and comparable 
nontakers on a wide variety of points relevant to cannabis use. 

b. We also used objective psychological tests to measure a number 
of psychological functions considered by various authorities to be of 
crucial importance for adequate functioning in work situations. Such 
functions are also treated, in the clinical literature, as significant 
indices of mental health— R. Payne 1973 ; A. Yates 1973. 

In all cases of interviewing and testing, we based our conclusions 
on the results of comparisons between users and nonusers. 


We found that the majority of cannabis takers — 78.5 percent — 
expressed a desire, but inability, to get rid of the habit, and about 
one-fourth of this discontented majority had made actual though 
unsuccessful attempts to stop the habit completely. According to their 
own reports, takers, when deprived of the drug, tend to become 
quarrelsome, anxious, impulsive, easily upset, and difficult to please — 
see also Haines and Green 1970. Their productivity deteriorates in 
quantity and quality. Such changes, combined with what seems to be 
an overpowering urge to continue taking the drug, constitutes some 
aspects of what the late Dr. Eddy and others called psychic depend- 
ence — Eddy and others 1965. 

We also found that cannabis takers far exceeded nontakers as 
regards attachment to alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco — see also 
Cohen 1972; Goode 1971; Leonard 1969; McGlothlin and others 1970; 
Whitehead and others 1972 — and that they, in fact, did so before 
taking to cannabis. However, the longer they go on taking the drug 
and/or the heavier they become as habitues, the more liable to adding 
opium to their drug menue they turn — Figure 1 — Soueif 1971 ; Nahas 
1973. This kind of data, in our opinion, suggests that cannabis taking 
may be viewed as part of a broad need or urge for any chemical agent 
that would affect the central nervous system, either by arousal or by 
inhibition, and that more familiarity with or attachment to cannabis 
facilitates — not necessarily on a pharmacological basis but could be 
through some psychosocial mechanisms — proceeding towards harder 


However, cannabis takers did not seem to be significantly below 
the average for nontakers on certain aspects of moral behavior. When 
faced with situations implying various kinds and/or degrees of temp- 
tation, takers did not appear to behave as more vulnerable than non- 
takers. They, also, did not see any inherent relationship between their 
drug habit and criminal tendencies or ways of behavior. 

We examined the actual criminal records of a large group of 
convicted takers and of an almost equally big group of convicted 
nontakers. Both groups were derived from the same prisons. In com- 
paring the two samples, we took into account all criminal offenses other 
than those having to do with narcotics. More nontakers — 13.5 percent — 
than takers — 5.7 percent — were found to have had criminal records 
previous to their arrest. We also found that nonusers tended to exceed 
users regarding the average number of crimes committed by each of 
those having criminal records — Soueif 1971. On the basis of our data, 
therefore, cannabis taking is not significantly associated with crim- 
inality. This conclusion is in agreement with what several other 
investigators reported — Nahas 1973. 


On the objective tests, we obtained the following results : 

a. Takers were definitely slow on tests used for the assessment of 
speed of very simple motor tasks. Those tests were derived from the 
world-known battery named USES. 

b. They did also poorly on a test measuring speed and accuracy of 
visual discrimination. This test requires a good deal of concentration 
of attention. 

c. Takers were definitely below the average for their comparable 
nontakers on tests for hand-eye coordination with and without speed 
being explicitly emphasized in the instructions. "Trail Making and 
Bender Gestalt Copy" respectively. 

d. We also found that on some tests of immediate memory — Bender 
Gestalt Recall — especially those requiring some kind of mental reor- 
ganization of the test material — "Wechsler's Digit Span Back- 
ward" — cannabis takers were very low performers. 

e. Cannabis takers tended to overestimate distances of moderate 
lengths. However, nontakers tended to underestimate such distances. 

f. As to time estimation the results are still equivocal. See also 
Hollister and Tinklenberg 1973 ; Tinklenberg and others 1972. 

As to the relative magnitude of intellectual and psychomotor im- 
pairment associated with cannabis taking we came recently to the 
conclusion that such impairment seems to vary in size according to 
the general level of predrug proficiency : The higher the initial level 
of proficiency, the bigger the amount of impairment. We could, so 
far, demonstrate the validity of this conclusion within two contexts 
as follows — Soueif 1974 ; 1971 : 

a. Those with a higher level of education — and/or intelligence — 
show the largest amount of deterioration, illiterates almost no dete- 
rioration, and semiliterates in between. 


b. Urbans — being presumably at a higher level of arousal than 
rurals — show much more impairment than rurals, with semirurals in 

At present, we are testing the theory along a third dimension, 
namely, young — minus 25 years — versus old age — 40 plus years. The 
prediction is that young takers would display more impairment than 
older users. We would, also, expect the same pattern of findings to 
emerge in the area of creative thinking abilities. But this has to await 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin. Professor Soueif, at yesterday's hearings which you 
attended, Professor Heath of Tulane University presented evidence 
of aberrations from the normal brain wave patterns in different seg- 
ments of the brain. The subjects in most of his experiments were 
rhesus monkeys, but he has also done his experiment with humans. 
Among other things, he stated that some portions of the brain appear 
to be much more affected by marihuana smoking than other portions. 
Could this tie in with your finding that those with the higher level 
of education show the largest amount of deterioration, illiterates 
almost no deterioration, and semi-illiterates in between? 

Dr. Sotjeif. I think it does show some sort of agreement or con- 
vergence with my results in the sense that in the clinical literature — 
and I am talking here as a clinical psychologist — we know that 
patients with brain damage are to be tested on tests of speed of 
psychomotor performance, and the expectation is usually that they 
show abnormal slowness. This has been shown to be the case during 
the last 20 years or more. I can tell offhand some names of the 

Dr. M. B. Shapiro of the Institute of Psychiatry of London, has 
reported on this fact. 

Dr. E. Paine from Canada and J. H. G. Hewlett, who were together 
at the Institute of Psychiatry, did quite a lot of work in this area, 
and this has been published and republished again in 1973 and it 
has not been refuted. 

Therefore insofar as the slowness of performance goes, this ties up 
with the idea of brain damage, which has been described yesterday, 

I think one can go on again telling the same story about something 
like visual discrimination and that cannabis takers showed some 
deterioration or impairment of this function. 

The only thing to be pointed out is that I did not mention brain 
damage because I always prefer to stick, very much, to my area of 
specialization, as a man who studies behavior as it can be observed 
from outside, and I leave the rest to my other colleagues in the 
scientific arena. 

Mr. Martin. I believe you have used the expression "dependence" 
or "drug dependence" in describing the attachment of the marihuana 
smoker to marihuana. But whether you call it addiction or depend- 
ence, what it adds up to in either case is that the victim is attached 
to the drug which has enslaved him in an obsessional manner — to the 


point where he finds it virtually impossible to separate himself from 
it even if he wants to ? 

Dr. Soueif. Oh, correct, I quite agree. I quite agree, and there is no 
point here in raising any type of semantic problem on it. 

Mr. Martin. There is one more question I would like to ask. I hope 
you can give us a very brief summary, perhaps in 2 or 3 minutes, of 
the major findings of your classic study on the total impact of the 
hashish epidemic on the Egyptian population, or on that portion of 
the Egyptian population that was involved in long-term use of 

Dr. Soueif. I think you probably know that I have been involved 
in this work for the last 16 or 17 years with an interruption, to be 
very correct, of one year during 1965-66. 

The impression, the general impression, I can just put forward 
straightaway, is that, if cannabis taking had not been so endemic in 
my country, I think at least a big proportion of my cocitizens could 
have been with a higher level of aspiration and sort of more willing- 
ness to fight their life through instead of rather leaning towards 
something like lethargy. I should think so. 

Mr. Martin. Their performance capability as individuals and as 
members of society would have been much greater had they not 

Dr. Soueif. Yes, yes. As a matter of fact, I am basing this impres- 
sion on one simple point. I have already made an estimate, and this 
was published in 1967, about how many regular takers would be 
estimated in Egypt, and taking the estimate into consideration, to- 
gether with the fact that the modal age for using cannabis, again at 
home, is the age between 20 and 40, which is actually the climax of 
productivity in a man's life, I guess it is a big sort of catastrophe for 
a nation to have this large number of young men taking cannabis 
because it is mainly a male sort of phenomenon at home, not like in 
the Western societies, females, the very big majority do not come to 
it. So anyway, with the large number of estimated cannabis takers 
compared with the number of people at this age group who would be 
working productively, I think it is really very serious. 

Mr. Martin. It would not be inaccurate to describe them as partial 
cripples who had lost a substantial percentage of their ability to 
perform, either at the manual level or at the mental level? 

Dr. Soueif. To some extent one can put it this way, although I am 
here a bit impressionistic I should say. 

Mr. Martin. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gurnet. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. No questions, sir. 


[Chart submitted by Dr. Soueif with his testimony :] 



■3 *o 

i 30 


10 - 

5 10 15 20 25 30 

Duration of hashish consumption (in ytars). 


Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor, very much for your fine 

Our next witness is Dr. Malcolm. Would you identify yourself, Dr. 
Malcolm, for the record? 


Dr. Malcolm. Yes, my name is Andrew Malcolm. I am from 
Toronto, Canada. 

Senator Gurnet. I will run through your qualifications in just one 
long question, Dr. Malcolm, which you can answer at the end. 

As I understand, you graduated in medicine from the University 
of Toronto in 1951. 

You undertook a psychiatric residency at the New York Hospital 
in Westchester County in 1952. 

You were registrar at the Bexley Hospital in London, England, 
for 2 years from 1954. 

You were senior psychiatrist at Rockland State Hospital in New 
York for 3 years from 1955. 

You have a certificate of the Royal College of Physicians — Canada — 


and you are a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and 

You were with the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation in 
Toronto for 9 years, during which time you studied the problems of 
alcoholism, narcotics, marihuana and solvent-sniffing. 

At present you are a full-time practicing psychiatrist and a mem- 
ber of the Drug Advisory Committee of the Ontario College of 

You are author of three books in the field of drugs which have 
received wide recognition — "The Pursuit of Intoxication," "The Case 
Against the Drugged Mind," and "The Tyranny of the Group." 

You have also authored some 60 papers. 

Are those statements an accurate summary of your background? 

Dr. Malcolm. Yes, pretty accurate. 

Senator Gurnet. Proceed with your statement, Doctor. 

Dr. Malcolm. The study of drug affliction of the cannabis type is 
exceedingly complex. I will restrict myself, however, to three related 
aspects of this study that have been massively ignored in recent 
years. I refer to marihuana and suggestibility, marihuana and the 
amotivational state, and marihuana and the ideological conflict. 


Concerning the acute effects of THC intoxication much excellent 
work has been done in the last few years. Virtually nothing, how- 
ever, has been done to determine the relationship between marihuana 
and the vulnerability of the intoxicated person to persuasion. But 
this drug is an illusionogen. In sufficiently high doses it is capable 
of producing what has been called the altered state of consciousness. 
Such a state, when it develops, has a number of characteristics which 
I have described in some detail in my book "The Pursuit of Intoxi- 
cation." (1) These include an impairment of the ability to test external 
reality and a tendency to engage in nonlogical thinking. Marked 
changes in time sense and of body image occur. Emotional responses 
are altered and sensory perception is typically distorted. The result 
of these myriad effects is the creation of a person who is funda- 
mentally changed from what he is like in a state of normal waking 
consciousness. His critical judgment is impaired and his capacity to 
effect transactions with reality is markedly reduced. As a result we 
may say with some certainty that such a person would be poorly 
defended against the influences flowing toward him from the milieu 
in which he has consumed the drug. 

This, of course, is an hypothesis based on much clinical observa- 
tion ; but it is one that should not be lightly dismissed without some 
attempt at scientific validation. 

This theory was first publicly proposed by me at the American 
Orthopsychiatry Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 
March 1970. In early 1972, when I was still a staff psychiatrist with 
the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, I was developing a 
research study to determine the relationship between THC intoxica- 
tion and suggestibility ; but I regret to have to report here that that 
institution dismissed both this theory and its principal investigator 


shortly after I issued a public criticism of the Commission of 
Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. This Commission had 
advised the Government that the simple possession of marihuana 
should no longer be regarded as an offense against the Criminal Code 
of Canada. 

Of course a very important part of this theory is that three vari- 
ables determine the degree to which marihuana can become a factor 
in the attitudinal reorientation of any given person. There is the 
personality of the user himself. He may be extremely well defended 
against the loss of control that is otherwise typical of the altered 
state of consciousness. However, not all of the people who are exposed 
to marihuana are mentally and physically healthy, psychologically 
mature, worldly wise and intelligent. Indeed, many of the people who 
are most liable to be exposed to this drug are either very young, 
mentally unwell, or both. Such people, who have already been in- 
trigued by the celebrated critics of every institution of our society 
might, on achieving the marihuana ASC, be caused to accept uncriti- 
cally the belief that the society is so irredeemably evil that total with- 
drawal from it can only be regarded as both necessary and virtuous. 

But apart from the personality of the user there is also the potency 
of the material that is actually consumed. Recent studies have estab- 
lished beyond any doubt that the marihuana effect is dose-related. A 
high dose of THC given to an unstable person who is inclined to be 
suggestible in the first place might result in a marked enhancement 
of his tendency to be easily persuaded. And this would be particularly 
the case if the third variable, the milieu, was especially powerful. 
And by the milieu I mean the setting in which the vulnerable person 
takes the drug and, particularly, the charismatic person who is a part 
of that milieu and who seems to exemplify the ideal member of the 
disaffiliated subculture. 

It is my opinion that among the many unusual characteristics of 
marihuana use one of the most important is that its users may be 
rendered suggestible and that what they consider to be their volun- 
tary espousal of a new system of values may be due, in fact, to 
influences beyond their conscious control. (2) 


One exposure to marihuana, even by an immature person in a setting 
highly conducive to his alienation from the general society, will 
probably not result in his immediate conversion to an entirely new 
style of living. For this to happen the person must repeat the cycle 
many times. He must become a chronic or habitual user of this drug. 

As a clinician, I have seen numerous people who presented a most 
distressing picture that resembled in varying degrees simple schiz- 
ophrenia, the sociopathic personality, and chronic brain syndrome. 
That is to say, these people seemed to be lackadaisical, passive, 
uninterested in the world around them and demonstrably unreliable. 
They would often be verbally quite facile but the range of their 
thought and feeling would be very limited, I might even say impover- 
ished. Their attention spans would be short and they would seem 
interested only in experiencing each moment as it occurred without 


reference either to the past or the future. Their thinking would be 
frequently nonlogical and they would be very fascinated by magical 
explanations for natural phenomena. Absurdities and incongruities 
seemed only to amuse them in a peculiarly superficial way. They 
presented, in short, a nonintoxicated version of what actually happens 
when a person consumes a sufficient quantity of marihuana to achieve 
a state of disinhibition, mild euphoria, self-centeredness and some 
degree of detachment from reality. 

Now this clinical picture has been called the amotivational state 
and I consider it to be of the greatest importance that it be either 
confirmed or disconfirmed that this condition develops in direct 
response to the chronic use of marihuana. Most of these patients give 
me the impression that they have been repeatedly persuaded that the 
values and behaviors that characterize the inclusive society are 
entirely lacking in virtue even though they are unable to give an 
informed argument to support their own rigidly held beliefs. In fact 
they seem to have been converted, through repeated exposure to the 
drug and to the milieu in which it is used, to a philosophy of life 
that has very little survival value in a technologically advanced and 
liberal democratic society. 


But therein lies a very difficult problem. A particular scientific 
study may report that THC, in sufficient quantity, can bring about 
hallucinations and marked distortions of perception; but this infor- 
mation will be examined by two groups of people and two entirely 
opposite interpretations will be offered regarding the significance of 
these findings. The first group will say that the subjects have been 
rendered psychotic and that the drug must, accordingly, be called a 
psychotomimetic. These people will be strongly opposed to the further 
acculturation of this drug in our society. They will say that its wide- 
spread use will injure many individuals and reduce the capacity of 
the society to maintain itself. 

The second group will examine precisely the same findings and 
conclude that the drug is a thing of inestimable value. It expands 
the mind. It brings about enlightenment. The drug is, therefore, a 
mind-manifesting agent, a psychedelic. And if only the whole coun- 
try could be turned on there would be peace and joy at last. The 
people in this group are the most vociferous apologists for mari- 
huana. (3) 

At a meeting of the Smithsonian Institution in 1972, I was on a 
panel with Dr. Richard Blum and on that occasion my distinguished 
American colleague pointed out that his countrymen were seeking 
quiescence through the use of such drugs as marihuana. He said they 
were escaping from the complex, competitive, high performance cul- 
ture which was, in so many ways he said, repulsive. The effect of this 
statement was, in my opinion, to promote the use of marihuana. It 
would seem that the law was the real problem. The drug was itself 
relatively benign and therefore the only humane and civilized thing 
to do was to strike down the law and let the people enjoy this sweet 
and quieting drug. 


Those who were inclined to emphasize the benignity of marihuana 
were clearly in the ascendant in the early seventies. Those of us who 
were inclined to regard the drug as a most deceptive weed, to use 
Dr. Gabriel Nahas' excellent phrase, were being systematically 
ignored. This tendency clearly continues but there are now some 
encouraging indications that the words of caution issued repeatedly 
by a rather small number of us may not have been entirely in vain. (5) 

From a clinical point of view we had observed that the drug 
hindered maturation and retarded recovery from psychiatric illness. 
I had most particularly suggested that it appeared to play some part 
in the creation and diffusion of the alienated subculture. We felt that 
such a drug must ultimately have a profound and deleterious effect 
on the complex biochemical processes of the living organism. In very 
recent years such studies, well designed, well controlled, and making 
use of quantified and active material have served to confirm, again 
and again, our earlier clinical impressions. Most recently, the study 
by Kolodny and Toro in St. Louis is an important case in point. (4) 
These workers reported that among heavy users of marihuana there 
was a marked suppression of the production of male hormones. This 
finding, to an observer of the amotivational state, might well seem to 
be a biochemical factor serving to reinforce the toxic and psycho- 
social influences that enhance suggestibility and lead, in time, to the 
development of that unfortunate state of mind in which the afflicted 
person seems to be dependent, bored and crucially lacking in energy 
and motivation. 

The ideological conflict will continue, I have no doubt; but 
eventually it will become apparent to all but the most thoroughly 
habituated users of cannabis that if this drug expands whatever is 
contained within the cranium the enlightenment conferred is compa- 
rable to what one would expect in a case of hydrocephalus. 

That, Mr. Chairman, is my prepared statement. Thank you very 

Mr. Martin. I would like to ask a few questions of Dr. Malcolm. 
Yesterday Dr. Kolodny, who testified, mentioned the possibility that 
the so-called amotivational syndrome to which you referred might be 
the result of a reduction in male hormones caused by the use of 
marihuana. Does this make sense to you ? 

Dr. Malcolm. Well, I was tremendously interested in the works 
of Kolodny and Toro which have been published in the New England 
Journal of Medicine because if indeed there is a 44-percent suppres- 
sion of testosterone, that would be a biochemical basis for what I have 

♦Bibliography : 1. Malcolm. Andrew I. The Pursuit of Intoxication. Simon & Schuster, 
New York, Revised Edition, 1972. 388 pp. 

2. Malcolm. Andrew I. "The Alienating Influence of Marihuana." Proceedings of the 
Eastern Psychiatric Research Assoc. 15th Ann. Meeting, New York, Nov. 7, 1970. 

3. Malcolm, Andrew I. The Case Against the Drugged Mind. Clarke, Irwin & Company 
Limited, Toronto. 1973. 204 pp. 

4. Masters, William H., Kolodny, R. C. and Toro, Gelson. Paper published New England 
Journal of Medicine. April IS, 1974. 

5. Nahas, Gabriel G. Marihuana — Deceptive Weed. Raven Press, New York, 1973. 
334 pp. 


observed for some time as a psychosocial phenomenon, that is to say, 
passivity, withdrawal from interest in general activities. 

I would sav that the cause of the amotivational state is multi- 
factorial but here is evidence from another quarter supporting that. 
Mr. Martin. You spoke about the amotivational syndrome as 
though you feel that it is not a hypothesis or an assumption but a 
reality which you encounter in the great majority or all of the 
marihuana users you come across? 

Dr. Malcolm. As a clinician I see it as being extremely important 
so I really have little doubt myself of the existence of this phenom- 
enon. I have seen it very, very often indeed. It is not really for me 
hypothetical anymore. 

Mr. Martin. I understand. Dr. Malcolm, that you had designed a 
device— I do not know how germane this is to our hearing, but it is 
fascinating — which is intended to stop an intoxicated driver, no 
matter what causes his intoxication, from getting into his car and 
starting it? 

Dr. Malcolm. Well. yes. I was concerned that the breathalyzer did 
not serve to keep the intoxicated driver from the road today because 
we deal with multiple drug use, and alcohol may not have been the 
only thing a man consumed so we needed something else to determine 
whether it is alcohol, THC or almost anything else, but the fact is he 
would be intoxicated. 

There have been proposals put up elsewhere of an electronic device 
that might prevent him from starting his car, from turning on the 

ignition. Well, I invented a very simple 

Mr. Martin. This is an electronic device that would require him to 
perform certain complex functions ? 

Dr. Malcolm. Certain complex functions such as the phystester 
which I understand has been developed by General Motors. 

Mr. Martin. Presumably he could not perform this while intox- 

Dr. Malcolm. Yes, it is a test of his capacity to show good judg- 
ment and good eyesight in that case and coordination and so on. 

But I felt what was needed, was actually needed, was a mechanical 
device very simple, very inexpensive, but still if it were properly 
designed, one which would screen the greatest number of people that 
would be so intoxicated as to be dangerous on the road, because 27,000 
people are killed every year, in fact, in automobile accidents caused 
bv drunk driving. 

" This was simply a combination lock, and the man would be required 
to turn the dial'to a number of positions. A simple test could be 
designed to determine how finely it should be calibrated and how 
many numbers he would have to touch and only until he had com- 
pleted this test would he be able to in effect start the ignition of his 
car. It is a device that is so simple that I think it might indeed 
reduce a good deal of the carnage on our roads if it were developed 
for use and tested. 1 

Mr. Martin. I hope your device is finally produced. Dr. Malcolm, 
and introduced into automobiles, and that it reduces the carnage on 
our roads in the future. 

J This device, the Toxicomb, is described in "The Case Against the Drugged Mind," 
Clarke, Irwin and Co., Toronto. 


Coming back to marihuana, is there any evidence to support the 
assumption that people use marihuana as a social stimulant, and that 
if they use marihuana they won't use alcohol ? 

Dr. Malcolm. There is absolutely no evidence. It is a myth that 
has been set forth over the last few years that marihuana drives out 
alcohol wherever its use becomes important. In fact, marihuana is 
added to alcohol and the person now can be described as a multiple 
drug user, but both drugs continue to be used and I might say in even 
greater quantities. 

Mr. Martin. What this would mean is that many of the drunken 
drivers who are arrested as drunken drivers are probably drunk on 
both alcohol and marihuana ? 

Dr. Malcolm. There is no doubt in the future we are going to be 
able to show this is the case. Eight now the drunk driver is by 
definition drunk on alcohol but in fact he may have taken one drink 
and many other drugs. The breathalyzer would show it is far under .1 
milligram percent but he still would not be able to function inside an 

Mr. Martin. When you get drunk on alcohol and marihuana, is 
there a simple arithmetic effect in which one is added to the other, or 
is it a synergistic effect, a compounding effect? 

Dr. Malcolm. Well, both drugs obviously have a central nervous 
system depressant effect but there are certain things peculiar to 
marihuana that would greatly complicate the matter. Judgment is 
obviously affected and the interpretation of the meaning of various 
symbols that we ordinarily understand is distorted, too. The effect 
of adding marihuana to alcohol is not similar to what would happen 
if you just took more alcohol. There is a distortion of perception and 
a further impairment of judgment of a rather unusual kind. 

Mr. Martin. I have a rather big question for which I would like 
to have a very brief answer. Not much is known in this country about 
the Canadian Le Dain report, but I believe there are some remarkable 
similarities between the Le Dain report and the Shafer report in the 
United States. Could you comment on these briefly, Dr. Malcolm ? 

Dr. Malcolm. As you say, that is a difficult thing to say in a word. 
There are many interesting similarities. Both reports contain a great 
deal of material that would give the general impression that mari- 
huana was a relatively benign intoxicant and not one that would 
represent a tremendous public hygiene problem. The Le Dain report 
in Canada actually proposed that the simple possession of marihuana 
no longer be considered an offense against the criminal code. A 
similar recommendation was made by the Americans. That kind of 
information certainly gives the impression to the people that they 
need not be unduly concerned about the increasing use of that drug. 
Nor did they emphasize the fact that there were far more potent 
varieties of that drug available now and in the future. There was a 
lenient and permissive attitude to marihuana on both sides of the 
border. Both Commissions were obviously extremely selective. They 
did not ask for testimony from a number of people who might have 
said things of a more cautionary nature. I am very familiar with that 
activity in Canada. I know of many people who were concerned about 
marihuana who were not invited to testify, and I know perfectly 


well there were manv Americans and other people who were not 
asked to testify here. So there was a kind of bias initially in favor of 
improving the climate of acceptance of marihuana on the grounds 
that it was criminalization that represented the real problem and 
not the possibly deleterious effect of the drug itself on the general 

I think that would be a brief statement in response. 

Mr. Martin. I think you have done remarkably well in the short 
span of time. 

The final question I would like to ask : In your writings — I have 
two of your books at home — you have been critical of the concept 
known as "wise personal choice" — that is, leave it to the wisdom of 
the individual citizen — as a mechanism for the social control of drugs. 

Dr. Malcolm. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Would you elaborate on this study briefly ? 

Apparently you don't feel the decision can be left to the individual ? 

Dr. Malcolm. No. 

The problem here is that a great many people have suggested that 
the answer to the problem of drugs is to give the people all of the 
information, all of the facts, and then they will make a wise personal 
choice on the basis of those facts. 

Now this appears to be a most beautiful, civilized, humane, and 
progressive and advanced kind of thinking; and the only problem 
with it is that it is totally impractical and naive because not all of 
the vulnerable people in the general community are able to under- 
stand the facts or are inclined to care about all the facts. Indeed 
education is important, and I am not opposed to this at all, but it is 
very foolish to think that giving the people all the facts will cause 
them to make a wise personal choice. 

It is necessary to have some external restraint when, indeed, some 
of the people are incapable of exercising internal restraint. But those 
people who propose wise personal choice usually are unalterably 
opposed to any kind of external restraint. It is very foolish because 
what we need in fact is both of these elements. 

Mr. Martix. A combination of education and the law ? 

Dr. Malcolm. Education and the law, and not one or the other. It 
is verv naive to think that everyone is equally educable or would 
even be guided by these facts, if they knew them. The problem with 
alcohol in our society is a perfect example of the disastrous impact 
of wise personal choice. Indeed there is lots of evidence that alcohol 
is a drug that causes trouble. It is completely available, and no one 
is guided by the information received. 

Mr. Martin. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Gurnet. Thank you very much, Dr. Malcolm, for your 
contribution to our svmposium here. 

Our next and final witness is Dr. Zeidenberg. Would you identify 
yourself for the record, Doctor ? 


Dr. Zeidenberg. Yes. I am Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg, research asso- 
ciate in psychiatry at Columbia University. I am senior research 
phychiatrist at New York State Psychiatric Institute. 

33-371 O - 74 - 14 


Senator Gurnet. I will make one statement here about your qual- 
ifications and if it is correct you can answer yes at the end. 

I understand you are a graduate in mathematics magna cum laude 
of Harvard University. 

You achieved your medical degree from the College of Physicians 
and Surgeons, Columbia University, in 1958. 

You received your Ph.D. in biochemistry from Columbia Univer- 
sity in 1965. 

Your special disciplines are clinical psychiatry, research in the 
clinical and biochemical psychopharmacology of both depression and 
drug abuse and research in electroconvulsive therapy. 

At the present time, in addition to being a research associate at 
Columbia you are the associate attending psychiatrist at Vanderbilt 
Clinic, associate psychiatrist at Presbyterian Hospital, chairman of 
the New York State Psychiatric Institute Radiation Safety Commit- 
tee, chairman of the Drug Dependence Committee of New York State 
Psychiatric Institute, and director of the methadone treatment pro- 
gram of this Institute. 

You have won several fellowships and awards, including the Amer- 
ican Medical Association's Physician Recognition Award in 1969, and 
you have published 12 papers including a chapter in the medical 
textbook entitled "Medical Aspects of Drug Abuse" published in 1974. 

Is that statement of your qualifications accurate? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. That book is in print. It is 1974, "Drug Abuse as 
a Factor" and "Medical Aspects of Drug Abuse" now in the press. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. Now you can proceed with 
your statement. 

Dr. Zeidenberg. As I pointed out in my recent article on this 
subject * the pressure for legalization of marihuana without even 
medical supervision so short a time after the beginnings of under- 
standing of its chemistry, pharmacology, and toxicology is unprece- 
dented in the history of this country. I interpret this eagerness as 
being in part as backlash to excessively punitive measures carried out 
against naive and noncriminal individuals, especially young people. 
I feel other factors are also at work in this, but the brevity of this 
statement precludes going into this complex issue in greater detail. I 
will restrict my comments to psychiatric and pharmacological haz- 
ards which must be seriously considered before any irreversible 
legislative steps are taken. 

I use the term "irreversible" deliberately, because I wish to 
emphasize that legalization of use of an agent in society creates a 
situation in which the agent becomes embedded in the social structure 
and is virtually impossible to extirpate. One need only look at the 
situation in regard to alcohol and cigarettes to realize this obvious 
fact. At the present time, heavy chronic use of marihuana is a 
relatively minor problem in this country although large numbers 
experiment with the drug briefly and intermittently. There is no 
question in my mind that legalization of marihuana will lead to a 
large population of chronic heavy marihuana users, numbering in the 

1 Psychopharmacological Hazards of Legalizing Marijuana in the U.S. Bulletin, New 
York State District Branches, American Psychiatric Association 16 :2, September 1973. 
Phillip Zeidenberg, M.D., Ph. D. 


millions, just as prevails with alcohol and tobacco. Both of these 
latter agents exact a terrifying; toll in human life, suffering, and 
expense in this country annually. I think it is probable that heavy 
marihuana use in our country would create a third at-risk population 
overlapping only in part with the two previous groups and further 
add to mortality, morbidity, and public cost. Anyone who doubts that 
such a population of individuals would develop need only look at the 
public health figures from nations where use is indigenous. I myself 
have had the opportunity to carefully scrutinize the situation in one 
such country. 2 

What are the possible public health consequences of the develop- 
ment of a large population of chronic heavy marihuana smokers in 
this country? I can only summarize some of them in the brief time 


Although much publicity has been given to studies indicating 
marihuana as harmless by certain physiological criteria, it must be 
emphasized that the number of physiological variables which must 
be studied is enormous before this agent can be established as safe or 
at least as safe as other drugs — no drug is perfectly harmless. Recent 
reports have indicated that this agent may be more dangerous than 
was first realized. A group of workers at the Reproductive Biology 
Research Foundation in St. Louis have recently reported depression 
of plasma testosterone levels after chronic intensive marihuana use. 
Thirty-five percent of these men showed reduced sperm counts. 3 This 
ties in with an earlier report of gynecomastia in marihuana users. 4 

Nahas and coworkers at Columbia 5 have demonstrated inhibition 
of cellular mediated immunity of 51 young chronic marihuana 
smokers. They postulated that this may be due to direct impairment 
of DNA synthesis by the agent. On the other hand, the findings of 
Nahas may be hormonally mediated and thus related to the findings 
of the St. Louis group. I)NA synthesis may be secondarily inhibited 
by effect of the drug on hormones via the central nervous system. 
Much more work is needed in this area to clarify this matter. 

Since time is limited, I will only mention other possible toxic 
effects which need consideration. 

(a) Chronic marihuana smoking causes bronchitis, diminished lung 
capacity, and abnormal microscopic changes in lung tissue. In the 
long run, chronic marihuana smoking may have many of the pul- 
monary effects of tobacco. Furthermore, in many places where it is 
used, marihuana is diluted with tobacco, so that legalization of this 
agent will incidentally promote use of a known harmful agent which 
the Federal Government is now spending large sums to reduce the 
use of. 

(b) Recent reports on chromosomal damage by marihuana need to 
be considered and reinvestigated seriously. Although they are in con- 
flict with earlier reports, they come from highly reliable sources and 

*Kif in Morocco by Gabriel G. Nahas, M.D., Ph. D., Phillip Zeidenberg, M.D. Ph. D., 
and Claude LeFebure', M.S., International Journal of the Addictions in press (lH7d). 
3 Kolodny, R. C, et al. New England Journal of Medicine 290 :872 (1974) MQ _ . 

* Harmon. J. and Abapoulios, M. A. New England Journal of Medicine 287 :«db (iy7J). 
6 Nahas, G. G., et al. Science 183 :419 (1974). 


would tend to mesh with the previously mentioned research on hor- 
mones and cell-mediated immunity. This area needs to be carefully 
investigated before final conclusions are drawn. 

(c) The issue of possible associations between heavy cannabis use 
and brain damage or permanent behavioral alteration has become 
hopelessly confused by a maze of conflicting, poorly controlled, and 
difficult to interpret reports. No definite conclusions can be drawn 
at this time but this is a priority research issue. No irreversible 
legislative steps should be taken until this issue is clarified. 


There is no doubt that a single dose of tetrahydrocannabinol can 
cause an acute psychotic reaction in mentally healthy individuals. 
One of our subiects in a small pilot study with oral delta-9 tetrahydro- 
cannabinol had an acute paranoid break lasting several hours. This 
young man is of unquestionably sound mental health. 

Marihuana use is also associated with longer lasting and even 
chronic psychoses. Many of these individuals, but not all, are found 
to have a previous history of serious mental illness. The remaining 
are often loosely dismissed as prepsychotic or latently psychotic indi- 
viduals. It must be emphasized that this is an operationally meaning- 
less statement making use of facile psychiatric jargon. It is not of 
much consolation to an ex prepsychotic, made ex by an hallucinogenic 
drug like THC who might have otherwise made it to a ripe old age 
still prepsychotic, a condition operationally indistinguishable from 
nonpsychotic. It behooves us to investigate this aspect of the drug 
more scientifically before it is made widely available. 

I wanted to add parenthetically here in knowing some of the 
remarks made previously that the capacity of marihuana, generally 
acknowledged to exacerbate underlying mental conditions, is some- 
thing which tends to be dismissed because of prejudices which we 
have in this country against mental illness as an illness. 

Now, to take a physical analogy we know that a great percentage 
of our population carries within it dormantly the herpes simplex 
virus and if anyone were to suggest the introduction of an agent 
which would greatly increase the rate of appearance of active herpes 
simplex this agent would immediately be stricken from use. But the 
idea of introducing an agent which activates mental illness is some- 
thing which does not seem to be so reprehensible to individuals, and 
this is a part of the general public misunderstanding of the nature 
of mental illness, in my opinion. 

As far as the effect of marihuana on behavior of normal indi- 
viduals is concerned, there is no doubt that it impairs normal func- 
tioning. In our work 6 we have found it to interfere with memory, 
speech, and pain perception. Numerous other studies, more extensive 
than ours, and involving other parameters, show that much normal 
behavior in our society is not possible under the agent. Driver per- 
formance, for example, is significantly impaired. Thus extensive 

8 "Effect of Oral Administration of delta-9 THC on Memory, Speech and Perception 
of Thermal Stimulation." bv Phillip Zeidenbers:. W. Crawford Clark, Joseph Jafice. 
Samuel W. Anderson, Susan Chin, and Sidney Malitz. Comprehensive Psychiatry 
14:549 (1973). 


marihuana use may bring us an entirely new at-risk population 
suffering from some of the detriments of both tobacco and alcohol. 

In our work, which we did, we verified quantitatively some of the 
observations made bv Drs. Kolansky and Moore earlier today about 
the flow of speech. We found that marihuana interferes with imme- 
diate memorv and thereby directly interferes with the flow of speech 
giving the characteristic marihuana speech which is so well known. 

Possibly the issue of greatest importance in the area of behavioral 
toxicity of marihuana is the question of the amotivational syndrome. 
This problem is frequently dismissed by those favoring legalization 
as a syndrome that is brought about by coexisting psychiatric diffi- 
culties in those individuals who coincidentally use marihuana, or 
alternatively, it is written off as something which is brought about 
by hopeless socioeconomic conditions in backward third world 
nations. Nevertheless, this syndrome is seen consistently in virtually 
all studies of chronic users in all countries and there are no reliable 
ways of measuring the subtle changes in mental state that might 
cause such a syndrome. This type of apathy and alienation may be 
brought about by drug-induced changes in capacity for attention, 
concentration, and motivation for which we have no adequate meas- 
ures. The history of psychiatry is full of unwarranted assumptions 
about psychological causation that later proved to be erroneous. If we 
are contemplating legitimizing this agent, it behooves us to investi- 
gate this phenomenon thoroughly with refined psychophysiological 

• And let us not deceive ourselves that this phenomena can't happen 
here in our socioeconomically advanced society. There have been 
clinical reports of this syndrome in chronic younger users here. 
Furthermore, the assumption that withdrawal into chronic cannabis 
use is a response to socioeconomically deprived conditions not found 
in this country is unwarranted and shows more pride and arrogance 
than judgment and intelligence. I have seen personally a society in 
which de facto legalization of this drug has created a large number 
of people with the amotivational syndrome. The majority of people 
in this society, although poor, are hard working, intelligent, highly 
animated and motivated, and not using marihuana. To regard our- 
selves as immune to this syndrome is not only potentially destructive 
to our own society but an affront to our foreign neighbors who have 
more pragmatic experience with this problem and with whom we 
have existing treaties to outlaw this drug. Clinical experience is often 
made light of in this era of controlled scientific studies. I do not 
wish to minimize the value of scientific work. I merely suggest that 
a thousand years of clinical wisdom are not to be dismissed by a few 
preliminary scientific studies. 

Finally, I wish to discuss my point of view on the social aspect of 
this problem. I feel that the President's commission on marihuana 
and drug abuse was correct in stating that the problem of marihuana 
is only one problem in the spectrum of drug abuse. Alcoholism, 
cigarette smoking, and opiate abuse all outrank marihuana in magni- 
tude as public health problems. It has been argued that marihuana is 
already freely available and that a situation prevails akin to that of 
prohibition, in which excessively punitive measures are employed 


against those using "bootleg" marihuana while others use legal alcohol 
and tobacco freely. It has been stated that legal marihuana would 
merely continue to be a minor problem in the United States. 

I believe there are dangerous psychological errors in these view- 
points. Each of us has within him a certain capacity to commit 
antisocial acts, varying with the individual and his circumstances. It 
will be noted from the Third Report on Marihuana and Health that 
the use of cannabis in the United States has not increased dramati- 
cally, despite readv availability. I believe this is because of the fact 
of its illegality. Illegality is a cutoff point which separates the vast 
majority of the population from those with psychopathology suffi- 
ciently great to drive them to commit the repeated antisocial acts 
necessary to use it regularly. I believe that legalization will turn on 
a "green light" which will enormously increase the number of chronic 
heavy users, just as it has in every other country where de facto 
legalization exists. Once this happens, marihuana will become an 
integral part of our social structure and take on complicated social 
and symbolic significance as tobacco and alcohol already have. Once 
this happens, it will be virtually impossible to remove it, and any 
attempts to remove it will indeed be regarded as prohibition, as was 
the case with alcohol and, in some instances, tobacco. Before the drug 
takes on this social and symbolic significance, laws against it are not 
the equivalent of prohibition. Prohibition, as we understand it in this 
country, is not prohibition in the literal or restricted sense of the 
words, but a complex memory extrapolated from the events of the 
1920's. As such, it does not apply to marihuana restrictions. 

On the other hand, certain realities about marihuana must be faced. 
It is impossible to cut off the supply of this agent. It will always be 
readily available and there will always be a subsegment of our popu- 
lation willing to take the risk of experimenting with it. Ultrapunitive 
measures taken against individuals occasionally using the drug can 
only lead to the backlash of pressure for legalization. Offenders 
should be given light, but significant sentences, enough to be a 
sufficient deterrent to repeated use. Chronic heavy users should be 
offered psychiatric treatment, not jail. This alternative should be 
reserved for hardened profiteers and sellers. Our job is to prevent 
marihuana from becoming an embedded social phenomenon. Eradi- 
cation by legal measures is a hopeless fantasy. The job of the law is 
to find the appropriate deterrent so that the marihuana problem is 
kept as a minor drug-abuse problem without crucifying errant ado- 
lescents. On the other hand, legalization will open a Pandora's box 
which we may not be able to cope with for centuries, or ever. 

Senator Gurnet. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin. I have just a few questions for Dr. Zeidenberg. You 
say on page 8 of your testimony that alcoholism, cigarette smoking, 
and opiate abuse all outrank marihuana in magnitude as public health 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Yes, I am talking in terms of numbers and cost. 

Mr. Martin. In terms of numbers of people involved ? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Yes, in numbers of people involved. 

Mr. Martin. But do they outrank it — marihuana — in terms of the 
damage it does to the individual involved ? 


Dr. Zeidexberg. Well, I think that marihuana is as capable as 
alcohol and tobacco of causing damage to the individual. 

Mr. Martin. From your observations and from your reading 
would you agree with the estimates that have already been offered 
that marihuana exposure — regular exposure over a 1- or 2-year 
period — is capable of inflicting irreversible brain damage? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. I think there is evidence to point in that direction. 
However, I think that there is conflicting evidence and I think that 
is something which needs more work and needs to be clarified. There 
is, however, the distinct possibility that that may occur. 

Mr. Martin. If that in fact were established, it would be a sub- 
stantially more dangerous drug than alcohol or tobacco? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Well, alcohol causes brain damage if used chronic- 

Mr. Martin. Not over a 2-year period? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Well, it usually takes longer than that and, of 
course, tobacco, I wish that somebody would clarify that with regard 
to tobacco, but I certainly think it is a dangerous drug and it may 
very well prove to cause brain damage. 

Mr. Martin. Would it not also be more dangerous— we are talking 
about potential as well as about the situation that exists today — be- 
cause of its easy accessibility and because of the ease with which it 
can be used by very young children? For example, a grade school 
kid can't take a quart of alcohol and hide it in his pocket and go 
down into the washroom, before school or at the noon break, and 
drink it. 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Right, very much more dangerous, and also more 
dangerous in the sense it cannot be detected, at least not at the present 
time, and as was pointed out earlier by one of the previous speakers, 
a child who needs an education can go into the washroom and smoke 
a couple of marihuana cigarettes in the morning and not learn a 
single thing for the rest of the day and nobody is going to know it. 

A kid who goes into the bathroom and has a couple of shots of 
whiskey in the morning certainly is going to be detected after a 
while and receive some kind of treatment. 

Mr. Martin. It is one of the "safety factors" built into alcohol 
use, if you wish to use the expression? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. So it seems. 

Mr. Martin. The boy who drinks is intoxicated and staggers and 
the staggering gives him away — that does not happen with mari- 

Dr. Zeddenberg. Right. 

Dr. Martin. One more question and then I think I will be 

You say on page 9 of your testimony that the Third Report on 
Marihuana and Health — this is from the Secretary of HEW to Con- 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Yes. 

Mr. Martin [continuing]. "Reports that the use of marihuana in 
the United States has not increased dramatically." I don't know 
whether you have had occasion, Dr. Zeidenberg, to look at the charts 
submitted to the subcommittee last week bv the Drug Enforcement 


Administration, showing a staggering increase over a 5-year basis in 
the rate of interdictions of marihuana and hashish coming into the 
United States or targeted at the United States. Marihuana interdic- 
tions went up tenfold to 780,000 pounds, hashish went up twenty-five 
fold over a 5-year period to 55,000 pounds. These were seizures made 
by Federal agents only — these figures do not reflect seizures at local 
levels. What this means, in effect, is that our law enforcement author- 
ities probably seized substantially more than a million pounds of 
marihuana and 70,000 pounds of hashish. 

If you want to be very conservative, multiply 7 or 8 — some people 
sa y io — and you have an idea of the amount consumed. It comes to 

7 or 8 million pounds of marihuana, 600,000 pounds of hashish. These 
figures certainly do not suggest, would you agree, that the marihuana 
epidemic is receding or diminishing ? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Well, they certainly do not seem to correspond to 
the report of HEW on marihuana and health which says that the 
increase has not been dramatic. Those figures are certainly very dra- 

Mr. Martin. There was also a graph showing a parallel upward 
curve in the rate of arrests by local and Federal authorities for can- 
nabis offenses — it just went up at an angle of about 60 degrees — so that 
all the indices appear to conform on this point. And the question is, 
where do the authors of the Third Report get their estimates ? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. I do not know. I think you will have to ask them. 

Mr. Martin. It is a good point. 

The Shafer Commission actually last year in their final report 
said that in 1972 there had been an 8-percent increase in the rate of 
cannabis use over 1972. We have no figures for 1973, but if it were 

8 percent for 1973 it would still indicate a 16-percent increase over 
a 2-year period, lower than the other figures suggested but still very 
significant. It does not suggest a tapering off. 

Dr. Zeidenberg. No. 

Mr. Martin. So on the basis of any available information from 
official Government sources, the question arises how could they come 
to this conclusion ? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. It is a bit surprising. I must say in my own clinical 
practice I do not get the subjective feeling that marihuana use is 
tapering off. I still hear about it, I hear about it more and more 
from my patients. As a matter of fact, it is becoming taken for 

I am afraid that the drug is acculturing, becoming part of the 
society in spite of the red light of illegality. I hope, for one, that 
that does not happen, but 

Mr. Martin. You speak about the red light of illegality. Are 
there any red lights on in our academic community or in our media? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Well, generally, I think, the media tends to, in my 
own reading of the media I don't think the media tends to empha- 
size the negative aspect of marihuana. They tend to emphasize what 
has been spoken of as the harmless effects of the drug. 

No, I do not think the media have put out a red light. 

Mr. Martin. Has the academic community put out a red light? 


Dr. Zeidexberg. No, generally speaking, I would not say they haye. 

Mr. Martin. So we have here — Dr. Malcolm has made the point 
that in order to control this you have to have a combination of an 
educational program and the law. We have the law, we do not have 
the educational program today? 

Dr. Zeidexberg. That is true. 

Mr. Martin. So our defenses are defective in that sense. 

Do you have any further comment you would like to make on the 
third report of the" Secretary of HEW on marihuana to the Congress? 

Dr. Zeidenberg. Well, I had a number of comments. I don't know 
that the time allows to comment on this, on so much. Their statement, 
for example, that the typical marihuana dealer is not a street dealer 
of such drugs as heroin or cocaine, he is typically himself a user, a 
middle class, not otherwise involved in criminal activity and his sell- 
ing is closely correlated with his level of use, I really wonder how 
they know this, I don't believe it to be true. In my own experience 
I have seen many people who are very deeply into the business of 
selling marihuana for a profit. I am afraid there is just two much 
here for me to comment on in the brief time. 

Mr. Marttx. You are aware of the fact that some of the seizures 
over the past 18 months have run into the multiton range — 12 tons of 
hashish, 3,700 pounds of hashish, 20 tons of marihuana, 43 tons of 
marihuana. Someone is operating on a big scale? 

Dr. Zeidexberg. Yes, I believe that is true. I am not personally 
acquainted with this. I did read an article in Time magazine some 
time back about a good deal of criminal activity associated with 
marihuana importation across the border from Mexico into Arizona, 
taking place between Phoenix and Tucson. That certainly was not the 
operation of small-scale operators who were just selling it themselves 
for fun. 

Mr. Martix. I believe I have gone beyond my time limit, Mr. 
Chairman. That concludes my questions. 

Senator Gurxey. Gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for com- 
ing here today and taking time away from your medical practice and 
your profession, your research or teaching or whatever your work 
may be and making this contribution in our effort to find out as 
much as we can about the effects of marihuana on our population, 
especially our youth. Certainly not only is it a domestic problem here 
in the United States, which is constantly growing, but it is a world- 
wide problem in many other countries as well, and I especially want 
to thank our foreign visitors, visitors from other nations abroad, for 
coming such long distances to help us out in our quest for informa- 
tion, too. 

Thank you very much. 

The subcommittee is adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. 
[Whereupon, at 1 :05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to 
call of the Chair.] 


MONDAY, MAY 20, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond, pre- 

Also present : David Martin, senior analyst. 

Senator Thurmond. The subcommittee will come to order. This is 
the fourth in a series of hearings by the Senate Subcommittee on 
Internal Security dealing with the marihuana -hashish epidemic, and 
its impact on the U.S. security. 

Last Thursday the subcommittee took testimony from a panel of 
seven internationally distinguished medical scientists. On Friday 
we took the testimony of a similar panel of scientists assembled from 
many parts of the world. Although I could not attend these hearings 
because of other pressing Senate duties, except for a few minutes, I 
had them monitored by my staff. I have been told that the scientific 
evidence presented at these hearings established beyond any question 
that marihuana and hashish are very dangerous drugs that do per- 
manent damage to the brain ; that there was also evidence presented 
that there is serious damage to the reproductive system, and danger 
of genetic damage and mutation. 

Today we shall be concluding this series of hearings. Our first 
witness will be a medical scientist, Dr. Julius Axelrod 1 of NIH, 
who won the Nobel Prize in 1970; our second witness will be Dr. 
Conrad Schwarz, a distinguished Canadian psychiatrist from Van- 
couver; our third witness will be Prof. Hardin Jones of Berkeley, 
one of this country's most eminent scientists, who is qualified in 
many different disciplines in the general field of medicine and science. 
Dr. Jones and Mr. Keith Cowan of Canada, who follows him, will 
be dealing with the causes contributing to the spread of the cannabis 
epidemic in our country, and internationally, and what can be done 
to combat the epidemic. 

1 The testimony of Dr. Julius Axelrod was ordered to be printed with the testimony of 
other scientists on May 16 and may be found on p. 142. 



To save time, will all witnesses rise and be sworn in at the same 
time, at one time as a group ? Would you raise your right hands ? 

Will the evidence that you give in this hearing be the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Dr. Axelrod. Yes. 

Dr. Schwarz. Yes. 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Cowan. Yes. 

Senator Thurmond. Have a seat. 

Dr. Schwarz we would be pleased to hear from you now. If you 
would please identify yourself for the record, and state your qualifi- 


Dr. Schwarz. I am Conrad J. Schwarz, and I am a graduate 
in medicine of the University of Glasgow, licensed as a practicing 
physician in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. I hold a 
fellowship qualification in psychiatry from the Royal College of 
Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 

Mr. Martin. Could you raise your voice, Dr. Schwarz, or bring 
the microphone closer to you? 

Dr. Schwarz. I am a consultant psychiatrist to the Student 
Health Service and clinical associate professor in the Department 
of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia. I am chairman of the 
Drug Habituation Committee of the British Columbia Medical As- 
sociation, a member of the Methadone Advisory Committee of the 
Canadian Government Department of National Health and Welfare, 
and a member of the board of directors of the Narcotic Addiction 
Foundation of British Columbia. 

Senator Thurmond. You may proceed now with your statement, 

Dr. Schwarz. I would like to first of all indicate that as a prac- 
ticing physician and psychiatrist, my approach is essentially clinical 
rather than scientific. Thus, rather than seeking to demonstrate 
isolated cause-and-effeet relationships, the process consists of the 
gradual accumulation of observations from which deductions can be 
made of value in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness 
in human beings. 

In the case of cannabis, over the past 6 years, I have made an 
extensive survey of the literature, examined many users, participated 
in private, public, and professional lectures and debates, and refined 
my thoughts in a series of published papers. From this ongoing 
process, I have formed certain clinical opinions which have been 
successfully applied in practice and teaching, and which I have 
found to be corroborated by many other physicians working in their 
own ways. Of particular interest is the fact that many users of 
cannabis have agreed with much of this material when it has been 
brought to their attention and a number of them have discontinued 
use of cannabis with significant improvement in their health. 

Most of the details of my thinking on this subject are contained 
in the selection of four papers marked (1), (2), (3), and (4), which 
I have made available to the subcommittee. In addition I have sub- 


mitted three appendices marked (A), (B), and (C), which detail 
the advice given in 2 successive years by overwhelming majorities 
at the annual meetings of the General Council — governing body — of 
the Canadian Medical Association when the Canadian public were 
clearly advised against the nonmedical use of cannabis. 

I will try, briefly, to cover those points which merit emphasis in 
relation to cannabis. In the first place, there is a need to correct 
some of the prevalent myths about the history of this drug. There 
is no evidence that cannabis was used for pleasure before about the 
10th century A.D., in the Middle East or in India. Some writers 
appear to have used isolated references in ancient manuscripts to 
what might, or might not have been cannabis, to give a false sense 
of ancient respectability to it. 

Ever since its use for intoxication was recognized, persistent cau- 
tionary statements have been made by close observers of cannabis. It 
should be emphasized that many of the new observations on the 
adverse effects of cannabis, which are now beginning to pour into 
the medical journals, are but modern terminological refinements of 
observations of clinicians and others in the old literature. 

For example, the statement of Ali al-Hariri, the 13th century 
Moslem religious leader quoted in paper (3), who made the clinical 
observation that cannabis was retained in the body, and had con- 
tinuing effects, for up to 40 days. Recent scientific measurements — 
the work of Dr. Axel rod's group in particular — have so far con- 
firmed the presence of THC and its metabolites for at least 8 days 
in the human body. 

Again, as indicated in paper (3), the major national commission 
studies of cannabis all contain a considerable amount of cautionary 
clinical material, the significance of which has been lost to the general 
public because of media preoccupation with the philosophical, politi- 
cal, and legal discussions in these reports. This statement even applies 
to the often quoted but apparently seldom read Indian Hemp Drugs 
Commission Report of 1893-1894. 

From the point of view of this physician, the overwhelming mass 
of evidence leads to the conclusion that the use of cannabis consti- 
tutes a significant health hazard. The evidence for this conclusion 
is detailed in the references in the four papers and in appendix 
(A) and can be summarized as follows: 

(1) Cannabis is a complex plant with many chemical ingredients, 
the nature and action of which are largely, but are not entirely un- 

(2) What is known is that pharmacologically, a major active 
ingredient, THC. and its metabolites, which probably have continu- 
ing activity, persist in the body for long periods of time, and likely 
have continuing psychological and physical effects. 

(3) The most commonly used derivatives of cannabis, marihuana 
and hashish, show varying potency, deterioration with time, and 
variable effects on humans. 

(4) Probably because of the long duration of active cannabis 
ingredients in the body, regular users, that is, once or twice weekly, 
show clinical evidence of continuing low-grade intoxication, charac- 


terized by memory impairment, mood swings, sleep disturbances, and 
generally lessened functioning. They also show a variety of physical 
disorders. Both the psychological and physical symptoms usually, 
though not always, begin to clear up a week or two after discontinua- 
tion of cannabis use, suggesting that a long-acting biochemical proc- 
ess is involved. This very relief of symptoms offers presumptive 
evidence for the "clinical" impression that cannabis is a causative 
factor in their production and maintenance. 

(5) There is evidence that tolerance and increased dosage need is 
occurring with regular cannabis users. This is indicated by a switch 
from the use of marihuana to hashish, which is about 8 to 10 times 
more potent, and by the huge doses of hashish used, for example, by 
some American G.L's in Germany. 

(6) Animal experiments have shown that active cannabis prod- 
ucts cross the placental barrier and can be passed in breast milk. 
There are also animal reports of fetal abnormalities and, more 
recently, there are reports of chromosome damage in human light 
and heavy users. 

(7) In keeping with reports that marihuana contains about 50 
percent more tar and nicotine than heavy tar cigarettes, there are 
reports of cancerous changes in animals and precancerous changes 
in the lungs of young human users. 

(8) There are reports of changes in nucleic acid synthesis in 
animal brains, which are thought to have some bearing on the 
clinical observation of memory impairment in humans, and there is 
also a report of cerebral atrophy in heavy human users. 

(9) Finally, there is the recent report from Dr. G. G. Nahas, of 
Columbia University, of interference with human immune response 
mechanisms by cannabis, much in the same way that DDT carries 
this danger. 

The physician, presented with the above list, for which detailed 
references are available in the attached documents, must conclude 
cannabis constitutes a significant hazard to the health of the indi- 
vidual. It is my contention that there really never has been, and 
there is not now, any significant body of medical opinion in favor 
of the utilization of cannabis. Like every other group, the medical 
profession has been confused about the philosophical and humani- 
tarian aspects of drug use, and some individual physicians have ex- 
pressed their idiosyncratic opinions as philosophers, lawyers and 
politicians on both sides of the drug debate. 

I myself have indulged in the same process at times in the past, 
but have found that when I make philosophical, legal or political 
pronouncements about cannabis, these only detract from what I have 
to say as a physician and psychiatrist. Such pronouncements seem 
only to allow some individuals to categorize me personally as being 
with them or against them and in either case they turn out and 
continue comfortably in their own convictions. By exercising my 
democratic right to keep mv vote secret, it is my impression that 
this encourages people to take a closer look at the evidence rather 
than judge the person. 

However, I consider it important to state clearly my views on the 


medical aspect of the marihuana debate. It is my clear opinion, 
based on the material presented to the subcommittee, that the use 
of cannabis should be discouraged on the grounds of individual and 
public health concerns. This is an opinion which is shared by the 
governments of many countries which have signed the Single Con- 
vention of the United Nations, by the recent British, American, and 
Canadian national commissions, and by the Canadian Medical 

Given that goal, which seems to be always still standing there 
when the marihuana smoke blows away, it is up to the legislators in 
different countries to decide what part their laws should play in 
achieving it. 

Senator Thurmond. Counsel has some questions. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much for your presentation, Dr. 
Schwarz. Do you find the cannabis problem increasing in Canada, 
the way it is here? 

Dr. Schwarz. Well, we have the feeling that it may be beginning 
to stabilize a bit in Canada; but it certainly has been increasing very 
rapidly up until quite recently. It's very difficult to say. Certainly 
the number of convictions for trafficking has gone up dramatically 
year by year for the past 4 or 5 years. 

Mr. Martin. I assume you follow the situation in the United 
States closely because of your general interest in the problem in 

Dr. Schwarz. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. From what you know of the situation here, and 
from your personal experience in Canada, do you feel that the 
Canadian situation is roughly comparable to ours, or are there sig- 
nificant differences? 

Dr. Schwarz. No, I don't think there are any major differences; 
I think they are quite comparable. 

Mr. Martin. I would point out in response to your first answer, 
Dr. Schwarz, people here are saying it is tapering off, or receding 
a little bit, but there is contrary evidence, quite contrary ; the amount 
being consumed goes up, and up, and up. 

Dr. Schwarz. Yes, I think we are having the same difficulty in 
trying to read the month-to-month situation in Canada. 

Mr. Martin. Do you feel the press in Canada overstates or ac- 
curately describes the dimension of the problem? 

Dr. Schwarz. I think it still has to be called an epidemic in terms 
of the rapidity of the spread in the use of cannabis over the past 
several years. 

Mr. Martin. And the total number of people involved ? 

Dr. Schwarz. I think so. 

Mr. Martin. Are cannabis users generally honest ; have you found 
them generally honest in their interviews, informing you of the in- 
tensity and duration of their habit, and any symptoms they may 
have noticed ; or do vou have any problems getting the truth out of 

Dr. Schwarz. I think they are honest, although I think we prob- 
ablv have some difficultv getting the facts out of them ; I think that 


is partly because of some effect of cannabis, it being a long-acting 
substance, its duration in the body is continuing and active. 

The problem is not so much their honesty; the problem is their 
difficulty in remembering. I know in my interview technique, which 
is a fairly fine instrument in doing the investigation of cannabis 
users — I could give you a brief excerpt. I usually ask them how long 
they have been using cannabis : how often they use it. Most of them 
answer that question with, "Oh, I only use it on social occasions." I 
then say, "Well, when were the last three occasions you used it?" The 
answer is usually something like, "Oh, last Saturday night, last 
Friday night, and sometime earlier in the week, but I can't quite 

As we go through the process I usually say to the individual, "Is 
the use of cannabis affecting you in any way adversely," and the 
answer always is, "No, everybody knows cannabis doesn't do any- 
thing to you." So, I then say, "Well, how has your memory been 
lately," and the most common answer is something like, "Well, that's 
a funny thing, Doc, it's not as good as it used to be." And I say, 
"How has your mood been lately " 

Mr. Martin. Your what? 

Dr. Schwarz [continuing]. "Your mood," and the answer, "The 
funny thing is, my girlfriend tells me I'm more irritable." "How 
has your sleep pattern been lately?" "Well, I have difficulty going 
to sleep at night, and I sleep more during the day." 

A number of individuals also describe a continuous feeling of 
being "spaced out" for 1 day or 2 days after the smoking of mari- 
huana. And this again, I think, is related to the duration of the con- 
tinuing intoxicant in the body. 

Usually by this kind of a process we get an individual to agree 
that cannabis may be a causative factor in this; and if we get him 
to that point, I usually suggest to him that he discontinue the mari- 
huana for a couple of weeks on a trial basis. Quite often they come 
back in and say, "You know, I'm thinking a lot more clearly, I 
didn't realize I was in that fog before. I'm picking up old interests, 
getting in touch with old friends I haven't seen for quite some time." 
And that process of improvement can continue to occur if the cannabis 
user avoids it. 

Mr. Martin. There are certain symptoms you believe may be 
caused by certain drugs but are not sure they may be caused by this 
drug. You remove this drug, the symptoms disappear. This would 
be satisfactory proof in the eyes of most doctors, would it not ? 

Dr. Schwarz. Oh, I don't think there is any doubt that there are 
clinical findings, that is, adequate justification, for advising people 
not to smoke cannabis. 

Mr. Martin. You, from your own experience, Dr. Schwarz, feel 
that the amotivational syndrome referred to by psychiatrists that 
testified previously is a clinical fact, a demonstrable clinical fact; or 
is it just a hypothesis which has yet to be demonstrated ? 

Dr. Schwarz. No, I think it is a clinically acceptable diagnosis; 
not necessarily a personality disorder because the causation of it is 
still unknown, but it is fairly clear that a number of regular users 
of cannabis are showing a deterioration of functions. Some people 


interpret it as a change of personality, while I personally tend to 
term it more the persistence of a long-acting substance in the body. 
But, there is no doubt there is a significant change in regular users 
of cannabis. 
Mr. Martin. And this is a very frequent syndrome of drug users? 
Dr. Schwarz. I think I could elicit symptomatology in any 
chronic user. 

Mr. Martin. In your statement you made the point you would 
rather not express your opinion concerning legalizing marihuana 
because you feel such a pronouncement might detract from what 
you had to tell your patients as a physician and psychiatrist. 

I respect your position on that point, Dr. Schwarz, but I would 
like to pose an alternative question on the psychological plane. If 
the Government tells the young people on the one hand that mari- 
huana is a very damaging drug; and yet on the other hand removes 
all penalties, even a simple civil fine for the possession and use of 
marihuana, might that not tend to confuse the young people that you 
are trying to reach ? 

Dr/ Schwarz. Yes, I think it's obviously a double message. You 
are saying on the one hand, we don't want you to use this, but on 
the other hand, you can have it in your possession. I think that has 
certainly caused some confusion among people in Canada because 
this sort of neutralizing statement did come out, for example, in the 
Le Dain Commission, which presented a massive volume of material 
on cannabis which was totally ignored, or largely ignored, by the 
media because the Le Dain Commission came out with legal, or philo- 
sophical, comments which affected the headlines. 

So, I think it's certainly confusing to people to be told we don't 
want you to use it but it's ok to have it in your possession. 
Mr. Martin. Or it's not so bad that we have to impose a penalty. 
Dr. Schwarz. Right. 

Mr. Martin. You referred to a resolution of the 1972 general 
meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, recommending doctors 
to advise their patients of the dangers of marihuana. 
Dr. Schwarz. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. This was passed by a substantial margin? 
Dr. Schwarz. There were 220 delegates at the annual meeting of 
the Canadian Medical Association from all over Canada, represent- 
ing all physicians in Canada ; out of the 220, only two people voted 
against the resolution advising the Canadian public against the use 
of cannabis. 

Mr. Martin. That's a pretty good accomplishment. You must have 
done a pretty good job of preparatory educational work. 

Dr. Schwarz. Well, we had not only educational but study work. 
We had a committee in British Columbia for 4 years looking at 
cannabis, a committee of seven physicians, all of them with a good 
deal of experience in the drug field. We were able to present a report 
to the British Columbia Medical Association that was approved 
unanimously, and at the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical 
Association it was passed by an overwhelming vote. 
I think not only was the material we prepared, the background, 

33-371 O - 74 - 15 


important in this, but I think it became obvious as the discussion 
went on in the meeting that many physicians had seen this kind of 
thing clinically in their offices anyway, and that they had seen some- 
thing like this happening. We just happened to be able to put it all 
together at that time in clinical diagnostic terms much better than 
had been done before. 

Mr. Martin. Talking about education, Dr. Schwarz, do you believe 
the young people that use marihuana have a completely closed mind? 

Dr. Schwarz. No, I don't. One of the reasons why we have to get 
this kind of information across to the public through the media, it 
is only when you sit down with the regular cannabis user and start 
questioning him that he becomes aware of, say, the sleep pattern, 
his general health ; and a fairly significant number respond by agree- 
ing, yes, maybe there is a cause-and-effect relationship here; maybe 
I should cut down on cannabis use, or give it up completely for a 
while and see if things clear. Once you get to that point, again, you 
are much nearer abstention from the drug. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, that ends my questions. I would like 
to ask, if the chairman approves, that the exhibits and papers which 
Dr. Schwarz has offered for the record be incorporated in the 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Mr. Martin. I have one more suggestion I would like to make for 
the approval of the chairman. Dr. Axelrod's testimony should have 
been given last Thursday when we had our panel of medical scien- 
tists. Unfortunately Dr. Axelrod was not present on that day. 1 
would like to propose that his testimony be printed together with 
that of the medical scientists who testified last Thursday. 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

I wish to thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for your appearance here and 
your testimony. 

Our next witness will be Prof. Hardin B. Jones. Professor Jones, 
will you please identify yourself for the record and tell us some of 
your qualifications. 


Professor Jones. Mr. Chairman, I am Hardin B. Jones. I am 
professor of physiology, professor of medical physics, and assistant 
director of the Donner Laboratory of Medical Physics at the Uni- 
versity of California, Berkeley. I have been on the staff of the Uni- 
versity of California, Berkeley, since 1938. I received my Ph. D. in 
physiology in 1944 and in the same year was appointed to the 
faculty. I have published approximately 100 significant papers on 
such topics as: origins of cancer, longevity, aging, cardiovascular 
disease, effects of radiation, effects of smoking and other environ- 
mental hazards, physical fitness, nutrition, regional blood flow, in- 
fectious disease, and treatment of cancer, and I have recentlv concen- 
trated my professional attention on the matter of drug abuse. My 


fields of scientific specialty include physiology, biochemistry, demog- 
raphy, statistics, biophysics, and epidemiology, and I have used many 
of these resources in my study of the effects of drugs and the origin 
of the drug movement. I have recently written a book, "Coleridge, 
on Coleridge and Opium," and, with my wife, another book, "Sen- 
sual Drugs: Dehabilitation and Rehabilitation of the Mind." I 
tender, as part of my testimony, some of my shorter articles and 
reports on the effects" of cannabis.* One of these is a report to the 
Army stemming from studies and educational demonstrations I con- 
ducted through the arrangements of Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, 
then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Drug and Alcohol 
Abuse, a position now held by Maj. Gen. Frank B. Clay. I made 
three extensive studies of the drug problem in Southeast Asia; the 
last was with Mrs. Jones (we collaborate) and included studies of our 
soldiers in Germany. General Abrams, then commanding our forces 
in Southeast Asia, awarded me a citation for distinguished civilian 
service in recognition of this work. 

It is pertinent to my testimony that I have personally interviewed 
more than 1,600 drug users, most of whom used cannabis, and that 
I give a unique course, "Drug Use and Abuse." The course has a cur- 
rent enrollment of 390 students. I have given it 10 times in 5 years, 
and it provides a clear example of how information, equivalent to 
that of these hearings, can stop drug abuse. 

Senator Thurmond. Dr. Jones, I have a few more questions about 
your qualifications before you testify here today. I believe it is not 
an overstatement that you have somewhat of a national reputation 
for careful scientific research. 

Professor Jones. I believe that is true, sir. 

Senator Thurmond. It was because of this reputation that you 
were asked to serve as a consultant on the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion on the effects of radiation and protection against radiation; is 
that true ? 

Professor Jones. I did most of the basic work that led to the new 
standard for radiation protection, and guidance to estimate radiation 
exposure hazards based on proportionality rather than on a thresh- 

Senator Thurmond. And it was your research that established the 
basis for the radiation safety standards currently in use. 

Professor Jones. I believe that my research and the evidence sub- 
mitted played a very large part in that. 

Senator Thurmond. These standards are generally accepted by the 
scientific community, are they not? 

Professor Jones. Yes, they are. 

Senator Thurmond. It Was also your reputation as a careful 
scientist that led you to the appointment as consultant on the Army 
Drug Abuse, did it not? 

Professor Jones. Yes, it was. 

Senator Thurmond. You may proceed now with your statement, 
Dr. Jones. 

*A list of the articles referred to mav be found at the end of Professor Jones testimony, 
p. 250. The articles are retained in the files of the subcommittee. 


Professor Jones. Senator Thurmond, I preface my prepared re- 
marks to thank you and your colleagues of the Internal Security Sub- 
committee for these hearings. They comprise the most extensive and 
comprehensive scientific meetings yet held on cannabis abuse. A 
number of us have made this observation. We also want to state 
clearly that the subject is urgent and needs the most serious atten- 
tion. The awful fact is that we are caught up in the most destructive 
epidemic of cannabis abuse the world has yet known. But the magni- 
tude of the disaster has not been recognized and corrective remedies 
have not been applied. These hearings may be the first step toward 
corrective action. 

Mr. Martin. Before you go further, Professor Jones, I note from 
your qualifications that you are also experienced as a medical stat- 
istician — perhaps you can throw some light on a matter that has 
been troubling some of us on the subcommittee. On the one hand 
there are official surveys that tell us that the cannabis epidemic has 
either leveled off, or perhaps tapered off ; on the other hand, there is a 
massive annual increase in marihuana and hashish seizures, mari- 
huana has gone upward in a 5-year period tenfold to 780,000 pounds; 
in the case of hashish 25-fold over 5 years to 54,000 pounds — by Fed- 
eral agents only. And cannabis arrests over the same period of time 
have increased comparably. All of this suggests that there has in 
fact been a continuing increase in cannabis abuse, rather than a 
tapering off. How do you explain such a conflict? 

Professor Jones. Well, it depends, Mr. Martin, on what informa- 
tion one uses. In different parts of the country one gets different 
examples of the extent of drug use, or drug abuse. In the beginning 
of the epidemic the larger cities and college campuses particularly 
were the beginning of the infection that led to the epidemic; and 
these centers for the most part now have reached saturation as far 
as the numbers or fractions that may be involved. 

But, our rural areas, that is a different thing. In our rural areas 
the epidemic is just now reaching public crisis proportions. And in 
most rural areas in the United States, areas that we formerly 
thought were immune, if there is such a thing, the problem is about 
as bad as it is currently in Berkeley. 

But I, myself, believe from all the surveys I have been able to 
supervise and personally conduct on the university campus — and the 
large number personally available to me from my own samples at 
Berkeley amounts to approximately a thousand students a year, a 
good size sample — that even today at Berkeley, although drug use 
on the campus has remained at a fixed percentage, 55 percent of the 
students in the last 2 years 

Mr. Martin. 55 percent use what? 

Professor Jones. Use cannabis, and some of them of course use 
other drugs as well. 

Mr. Martin. Just experimental, or on a regular basis? 

Professor Jones. They use it on a regular basis so that even though 
of the average freshmen coming to the university, only about one in 
six or one in eight uses cannabis when they come in, each successive 
year they stay the fraction that uses cannabis or other drugs in- 
creases, so by the time they graduate, considerably better than 90 
percent are experienced cannabis users. 


So, even in the university atmosphere, where the sampling of 
drugs should show a steady volume, there is still an increase in the 
students' use of drugs as they pass through the university. This 
cetainly portends, taking the United States as a whole, that the young- 
est cohort of the youngsters that are approaching adult age is still 
being inducted into the drug problem. So, the problem is not going 
away. I doubt if it is truly even crested as yet, although I would like to 
think that in the future we may see such evidence. 

Mr. Martin. One further question, some of the people with whom 
we discussed the matter tells us that the statistics for seizures or con- 
victions of marihuana and hashish, and the statistics for arrests, year 
by year, of cannabis offenders, are no reliable indications of the 
amount of cannabis actually being consumed. Do you feel that these 
statistics are in fact worthless as indicators of a trend; or do you 
think that they have serious validity? 

Professor Jones. Mr. Martin, I believe the numbers have very 
significant validity. They are not the only answer, and I think it is 
always important to go by as many sources of information and 
points of view as are available. But, in 1968 I wrote a very serious 
analysis of the trend in the drug problem, and I used arrests of drug 
users and also seizures of drugs as the basic quantitative informa- 
tion on which to make my projection. 

My projection has been accurate within 10 percent in estimating 
the drug traffic today; and in fact drug traffic today has increased 
nearly a factor of 10 above the level of that time. So, I think the 
seizures are very important data. We have always been able to use 
seizures as some real indication of traffic. In fact, in a country as 
big as this, with 200 million people involved and the many tons 
of illicit drugs being seized per year, the statistical stability of these 
numbers is very great indeed, and you can tell that from the re- 
markable smoothness of the trend and the uniform rate of increase 
over the past decade. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you. Will you proceed with your statement, 
Professor Jones. And, I want to point out for the information of the 
two remaining witnesses, you and Mr. Keith Cowan, that we are 
going to be short of time this afternoon because of the schedule of 
rollcall votes that are scheduled for after 4 o'clock. So, I would ask 
you to edit your text as you read it, judiciously, with a view to ab- 
breviating your reading time as much as possible. 

Professor Jones. Could the statement be inserted? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection the entire text will be in- 
serted in the record, and you can comment on the main issues if you 

Professor Jones. Very well, I will only read those portions that I 
believe important for us to consider in detail at this time ; and I will 
paraphrase and condense the rest, and try not to go over 20 minutes. 

I was talking about the magnitude of the current disaster. 

I do want to say that, typical of disasters, the reason they become 
disasters is that the remedies are a part of the problem and make the 
disaster worse than otherwise it would be. I feel that most of the 
public effort that we have applied to the drug problem, in the at- 
tempt to convince ourselves that a drug can be kept at a moderate 


level, specifically in regard to the cannabis family of drugs, led us 
to expend most of our energy debating questions as to whether drugs 
in general, or cannabis in particular, might be legalized or de- 
criminalized; all of this has not only dissipated our energies, but 
also has kept us from directing our attention to the central problem. 

As an expert in human radiation effects, I point out that the 
chromosome damage found by Professor Stenchever, even in those 
who use cannabis moderately, is roughly the same type and degree 
of damage as in persons surviving atom bombing with a heavy level 
of radiation exposure — approximately 150 roentgens. The implica- 
tions are the same. 

Dr. Heath has presented direct observations in humans that use 
of cannabis results in persistent poisoning of the deep centers of the 
brain necessary for the awareness of pleasure. This fits the observations 
by many of us that marihuana users have severe sensory deprivation, 
and that this symptom of marihuana intoxication is the slowest and 
least likely to recover. Dr. Heath has, in a sense, shown by direct 
measurement that cannabis poisons the very part of the brain that 
allows full awareness of being alive. 

There is perhaps no greater hell, even with pain, than not to be 
able to feel alive. Those who are not able to feel alive will even 
seek pain to get relief from their remorse. And that is the hell that 
is projected for those who use cannabis. 

I must say that, with regard to my 1,600 cannabis users, it is rare 
to find someone that does not show symptoms of this very tragic 
change. Hopefully those symptoms will be reversible. 

Now, in presenting my argument, let me also ask, for the record, 
that two highly integrated papers of mine will be carried in the 
record along with this testimony because they have to do with a 
view of cannabis that is not available elsewhere; and it's highly 
integrated and coordinated with all the testimony that occurs. These 
papers, however, are not recent, they were prepared over the last 2 

Mr. Martin. May I suggest that this material be accepted for the 
files of the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Professor Jones. Also, for the educative instruction of what we 
have brought together here, I have three small letters to the public, 
some of which have been widely distributed already, but they ought 
to be a part of the record, too, because they will easily allow anyone 
reading the text to realize the significance of the findings. 

Mr. Martin. Do you have any other documents you wish to offer 
at this time? 

Professor Jones. No, I will proceed now to look at the exhibits. 

Mr. Martin. May the letters be incorporated as appendices? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Professor Jones. The findings of Stenchever and Heath put the 
effects of cannabis in a very serious category. Not only do we hope 
that there will be appropriate action by Congress and the executive 
branch of the Government but we also hope for an end to foolish 
statements encouraging the use of marihuana. 

In my presentation this afternoon, I plan to deal with the sources 


of the current marihuana-hashish epidemic, because only when we 
have identified the sources will we be able to attack and push back 
the epidemic. A classic source is the influence of the literary-intel- 
lectual tradition involving some much admired names in English and 
French literature. But this by itself would not have been enough 
to launch the epidemic. Nor did the epidemic arise spontaneously. I 
believe that the rapidity with which the use of marihuana has spread 
across our Nation in less than 10 years is the result of a massive 
and sustained promarihuana propaganda campaign, involving a 
small but influential number of academic propagandists, the media, 
the entertainment industry, and the new left. 

In my presentation, I plan to deal separately with each of these 
sources of promarihuana propaganda. 

Origins of the Drug Movement 

involvement of literary intellectuals with drugs 

Some writers of the late 18th and early 19th century began to 
make use of mind-altering drugs when the large-scale importation of 
opium to the Western countries by the East India Co., beginning 
in 1776, made opium and morphine readily available. The effects of 
these drugs fitted well with the mood of the Komantic Movement. 
Under the influence of opiates, writers fantasized and were attact- 
ively mystic and incomprehensible. They had much to do with the 
dreamy* impracticality and the sympathy-generating anguish of the 
Romantic Movement. One cause of the dreaminess was the non- 
specific euphoria induced by opium. The anguish, depression, and 
misery were derived from the special problems of the opium-eater: 
addiction, tolerance, withdrawal illness, sensory deprivation, and 
depression. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Thomas de Quincey were 
the first prominent writers in this movement; other prominent 
intellectuals, over the intervening century, were Charles Baudelaire, 
Edgar Allen Poe, and, in recent times, Aldous Huxley. Huxley 
wrote an essay, "Heaven and Hell," revealing his drug-induced 
manic depressive disease. He also wrote, in 1954, the essay that be- 
came the touchstone of the current drug movement : "Doors of Per- 
ception." Here he witnessed to the mental wonders of "mind ex- 
pansion" through use of the hallucinogenic drug, peyote or 
mescaline. Millions have read this romantic and misleading account 
of mental "trips" on a drug. That hallucinations do, occur and are 
fascinating is not incorrectly reported; what is in error is the as- 
sertion that this is "mind expansion" or in any way an enhancement 
of the powers of perception. The mind simply limps along with 
portions of the brain not working. Novel? Yes, for normally we do 
not deliberately generate sensory confusion and impairment of 
perception. But the romantic notion of "mind expansion" took hold 
and was combined with supposedly "scientific" studies in the same 
vein by Dr. Timothy Leary — then assistant professor of psychology 
at Harvard University. Leary used and studied the drug, psilocybin, 
which is similar to mescaline but more powerful. The still more 
powerful lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD, was rediscovered and 


used by the drug romanticists in the mid-1960's. In the meantime, 
through the efforts of Herbert Marcuse, "Eros and Civilization," 
Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, and others, a political movement 
based on the use of drugs was conceived and launched. 

The political goals of some of the drug cult leaders can be per- 
ceived in the almost incoherent ramblings of Leary in his 1968 
book, "High Priest." On pages 111-128, he describes a group drug 
session using the "sacred mushroom" drug, psilocybin, that took 
place in December 1960. 

There were the detached philosophers * * * who knew that the new drugs 
were reintroducing the platonic-gnostic vision * * * here was Allen Ginsberg, 
secretary-general of the world's poets, beatniks, anarchists, socialists, free sex 
love cultists * * *. He was lying on the top of the blanket. His glasses were off 
and his black eyes, pupils completely dilated — from psilocybin — looked up at 
me * * *. A little later, in the study. In front of the desk looking like medieval 
hermits were Allen and Peter both stark naked. 

[Ginsberg's words, as cited by Leary, in capitals.] 

TION, REVOLUTION * * * Allen says he is the Messiah and he's calling 
Kerouac to start a peace and love movement * * * I also hear Paul Goodman and 
N. Podhoretz are forming some kind of committee for intelligent action which 
has as program various things such as sex freedom and drug freedom. 

♦ * * I SAW THE BEST MINDS OF MY GENERATION * * * Allen talked 
nearsighted Marx-Trotsky-Paine poetry * * * WHO DISTRIBUTED SUPER- 
DRESSING * * *. Allen Ginsberg the social-worker politician explaining the 
sex-drug-freedom-ecstasy movement * * * And so Allen spun out the cosmic 
campaign. He was to line up influentials and each weekend I would come down 
to New York and we'd run mushroom — psilocybin — sessions. 

In the early 1960's, I was occasionally aware, from student con- 
tacts, that the Telegraph Avenue area of Berkeley was experiment- 
ing with LSD and free sex — Leary style. But prior to 1965, this 
must have been confined to a small and isolated segment of the 
university community. 

Chance opportunity to launch the drug movement came to 
Berkeley in January 1965. The Free Speech Movement won an en- 
dorsement from the Berkeley faculty of their contention that free 
speech includes freedom to engage in illegal advocacies and acts. 
This sad event occurred on December 8, 1964. When the campus 
reopened in January 1965, the first such illegal act was open ad- 
vocacy of drug use — in particular, marihuana and LSD. Pro-mari- 
huana handouts flooded the campus for months, and speakers end- 
lessly sought to promote these drugs in the "free speech area", using 
university public address equipment, and in classrooms. A student, 
Charles Artman — "Charlie Brown" — who was much involved in use 
of LSD and marihuana, became the initiator of the Filthy Speech 
Movement. When I first met and interviewed him, he was a clean 
and bright-appearing young man. In a relatively short time, he 
changed to an aged, sagging, and dull-witted person. As for the few 
prominent in the Free Speech Movement who have remained active 
and vigorous, it appears that they were not drug users. On the other 
hand, there were multiple tragedies among those who used drugs, 
though no one can prove a causative link to cannabis and LSD. 


During this time, we had a son and a daughter on campus. Among 
their circle of friends, even though our children did not use drugs 
and the majority of their friends did not, there were nevertheless 
some who were seriously affected by drug abuse : 

1. An A student in engineering became heavily involved with 
marihuana and LSD and failed in his courses. He partially recovered 
and changed his major to sociology, but then dropped out into the 
Haight-Ashbury drug culture and is reported to have died. When 
last seen, he was unrecognizable physically and with no trace of his 
former high intelligence. 

2. A strong B+ student with aptitude in literature became a 
"speed-freak" — heavy user of amphetamines. She was also involved 
with marihuana and other drugs. She has partially recovered — 
enough to work and support an inactive, pot-using "husband" — but 
she lost her way. 

3. An A student did surprisingly well in spite of his use of can- 
nabis, a few LSD trips, and heroin addiction. But he was able to 
sustain himself for only a year. Drug use then became his entire 
life pattern. He left Berkeley, so I do not know what has happened 
to him since. 

4. An A student, son of a professor, became a multiple drug user 
and a dealer in drugs. He was "busted" early in his drug-peddling 
career and gained rehabilitation, but only after considerable effort. 
He is reportedly doing well and free of drug use. 

5. An athlete who sometimes dated our daughter had an athletic 
scholarship, was a strong student academically, and was recognized 
as an outstanding person. His subsequent involvement with cannabis 
and LSD produced a permanent personality change. He became 
homosexual and a dangerous manic depressive. Shortly afterward, 
iij an LSD flashback, he killed a relative. He is now institutionalized. 

6. A young man, the son of schoolteachers, very able mentally and 
with exceptionally fine home training, began using drugs on campus. 
One day he went home while "high" on amphetamines, beat his 
father to unconsciousness, and killed his mother by mashing her 
head with a flowerpot. He never offered any explanation for his 

7. A young man who was both an outstanding athlete and a strong 
student was accepted into medical school. He was a moderate canna- 
bis user. During his sophomore year in medical school, he died of an 
overdose of barbiturate self -injected intravenously. 

8. An additional six individuals have undergone personality 
changes due to cannabis and LSD, to a degree requiring psychiatric 
care. It can be said that, while these six have "recovered", they have 
certainly blunted their potential and cannot make up for the loss of 
time in the most formative period of their education and develop- 

I cite the above cases because they all occurred within the limited 
circle of friends and acquaintances of my son and daughter. The 
number of cases is high, in view of the small fraction of that circle 
that was involved with drugs. No equivalent tragedies occurred 
among the acquaintances of another daughter, who was at Berkeley 
in 1960-64, or of our son who is there now, 1970-74, but not in touch 


with the drug-using segments of the campus. From questioning 
parents on this subject, as I often do, I conclude that it is rare today 
to find adults without some close relative — often their own children — 
affected by drug abuse; dropping out, indolence, lowering of goals, 
alienation, and mental dullness are common. Although death from 
overdose of drugs — heroin, methadone, and barbiturates — has be- 
come the leading cause of death of young adults, and although drug 
use is common, the vast majority of those severely affected remain 
out of sight, supported by relatives, friends, or state welfare agencies. 
Superficially, there are few signs that we are suffering such a cata- 
strophic loss. All samplings I have made in ghetto, middle-class, and 
upper-class communities show extensive harm from cannabis, heroin, 
amphetamines, LSD, and now cocaine. Yet the magnitude of the 
problem remains hidden. Families affected bear their anguish in 
silence, and the agencies that evaluate vital statistics have collected 
little information on this problem other than numbers of deaths 
from overdose. 

Drug abuse patterns of each type of drug and the techniques of 
taking the drug spread from person to person. Each user draws in 
others. This is the explanation of the fact that numbers of drug users 
increase multiplicatively with time. Prior to 1965, signs of drug use 
had been increasing at the rate of approximately 6 percent per year. 
But after drug use was openly advocated, as at Berkeley from Jan- 
uary 1965 on, drug use of each type increased at 7 percent per month, 
resulting in an annual increase 20 times as great as before 1965. 
Young people became more easily convinced that the invitations of- 
fered by drug-using friends were worth accepting. Whereas prior to 
1965 it took a decade, on the average, for each user to convert a 
friend, after 1965 it took only 9 months. The greater susceptibility is, 
in my opinion, the result of widespread advocacy of drug use by 
persons in influential positions. Professors — not all, but a few — were 
involved. Magazines did their part, too, by romanticizing the use of 
hallucinatory drugs. Life ran feature stories in 1965 of the expedi- 
tions to Central America to try the "sacred mushroom", psilocybin. 
For the first time, the drug abuse disease of a few intellectuals broke 
into the educational system, literally without opposition and with 
"distinguished" support for the "mind expansion" hypothesis. 


I have had discussions with many drug-user advocates. Relying 
principally on personal experience, they believe that cannabis and 
whatever else they use is harmless because they perceive no diffi- 
culties. That is one of the subtle dangers of most of these drugs: 
That the user is rendered incapable of detecting the changes in him- 

Some advocates equate drug use with civil rights and with the anti- 
war movement. After my first lectures about marihuana in 1969, in 
which I pointed out the adverse effects, a delegation of students 
called at my office to complain that my lectures were "against their 
constitutional rights." 

From a few of the more sophisticated students involved in the 


effort to legalize drugs, I have learned that they expect to start a 
political movement of the magnitude of the antiprohibition move- 
ment of the depression period. An important book in this vein is by 
John Kaplan, a Stanford law professor : "Marihuana — the New Pro- 

At Berkeley, where these events began, the Free Speech Move- 
ment came first, followed by the drug movement, followed by the 
Filthy Speech — free sex — Movement, and later by the antiwar move- 
ment. There has been a commingling of the same persons in these 
movements. I have already noted the involvement of the FSM lead- 
ers with drugs. 


Dr. Timothy Leary : I knew him in the 1950's and, in my opinion — 
reinforced by others who knew him in Berkeley — he has signs of 
mental deterioration, coincident with his drug use. Typical of the 
persistent delusions of heavy drug users are his lapses into belief in 
his personal divinity — note the title of one of his books : "The High 
Priest." He talked on the Berkeley campus frequently, advocating 
that students "blow their minds" on drugs. Another Leary phrase 
was : "Tune in, turn on, and drop out." By chance, I was one of the 
last to challenge him in public discussion before he was arrested. We 
debated in San Francisco on Friday, November 7, 1969. Leary asked 
the audience of some 500 high school journalism students to use 
drugs to protest the war in Vietnam. "Blow your minds." I replied 
that many young people had already taken Dr. Leary's advice, and 
this had led, through LSD use, to the death, or mental or physical 
maiming, of more people than had been killed or maimed in the 
war in Vietnam in the same time period. Leary exclaimed, with a 
waving of his arms : "I've been shot." Then, after a pause, he said : 
"You are wrong; I know of only 250 who died from taking LSD." 
I replied: "These were the ones you knew about personally, Dr. 
Leary." He remained after that in a trancelike state, making no 
further comment. Interestingly, the newspaper report of the incident 
cited the "verbal scuffle," but did not give the significant details. 
Leary's viewpoint is well summed up by his statement, cited by the 
press on February 7, 1969 : "Psychedelic drugs are the most revolu- 
tionary agents discovered by man. The Establishment should be 
having nightmares about them." 

Now, the Leary matter is relatively extensive, even in this conden- 
sation of my files on Leary ; I offer this in its entirety to the committee, 
but I have also marked certain exhibits that you may find par- 
ticularly handy. There is no doubt that, in Leary's own words, he 
and Allen Ginsberg and others were trying to get a drug-sex-ecstasy 
movement started. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, may these exhibits be accepted with 
the understanding that the subcommittee will exercise its judgment 
in deciding which if any of the items should be included in the 
appendix ? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Professor Jones. Andrew T. Weil: Then a student at Harvard 
Medical School, he published [Science 162: 1234, December 1968], 


with Norman Zinberg and Judith Nelsen, a study entitled : "Clinical 
and Psychological Effects of Marihuana in Man." The authors postu- 
lated that there may be a "reverse tolerance" with marihuana use 
since "people do not become high on their first exposure to mari- 
huana even if they smoke it correctly * * * as use becomes more 
frequent, the amount of drug required to produce intoxication de- 
creases — a unique example of 'reverse tolerance.' " Although the 
authors acknowledged the possibility of other explanations for the 
effect, the colorful phrase, "reverse tolerance," was seized upon by 
Time in its report on this study. 

I replied at once to that extravagant claim : 

Time speculates about a "reverse tolerance" to marihuana (Dec. 20). No 
claims for reverse tolerance have been made by responsible persons, even 
though the lack of response to marihuana in initial trials is well known. I 
prefer the statement of a pot user, published by the columnist, Helen Bottel, 
in April : "Marihuana, contrary to narcotic drugs, has a cumulative effect, 
and each time it is smoked it will take less and less to feel high, but it may 
take as many as four or five tries before you get off the ground." 

My search into the matter has convinced me that the explanation is not 
that kids are too scared to let the drug take effect at first or that the pot 
reaction is the result of suggestion and conditioning or a reverse tolerance. 
There is no precedent for a reverse tolerance. There is much precedent for 
accumulation of chemical burdens, and it seems to me that this is the most 
likely explanation — a lasting and accumulative effect of marihuana on the 

I have here as an exhibit my immediate reply to this, which was 
also published in Time Magazine 2 weeks later, in which I showed 
what has been borne out today, that this evidence shows that mari- 
huana has a cumulative effect, not a reverse tolerance. 

Mr. Martin. Is ask that this be received for the files of the subcom- 
mittee, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, this will be done. 

Professor Jones. Nonetheless, the world of literary intellectuals 
has clung to the term "reverse tolerance", and one can use the pres- 
ence of this phrase at the present time as a device to tell the difference 
between papers that are scientifically and professionally sound, and 
papers and articles on the cannabis problem that are propaganda 
and fiction; they divide very equally on this point. And none of the 
propaganda for marihuana that I have ever known since the formu- 
lation of this term has left out the term "reverse tolerance", which 
is unfortunately also included in the Shafer Report, which I con- 
sider more a political and sociological document, and mistaken 

Mr. Martin. Let me interrupt you at this point, Dr. Jones. 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. You used the word "propaganda"; are you using 
propaganda in a derogatory sense ? After all, if you believe in some- 
thing that you believe is good, is there something wrong in making 
propaganda for it, making the facts known to other people, per- 
suading them? 

Professor Jones. That is a point that well can stand clarification. 
All of us who are here are propagandists because that is the primary 
explanation given in the dictionary. I have many causes and be- 
liefs that I adhere to and I express myself clearly on them. 


However, I am using propaganda in the sense of persons' using an 
incomplete rendition of the information available and known to 
them, and probably being intentionally deceptive in their presentation ; 
the dictionary also covers that possibility. 

Mr. Martin. What you are saying in effect, you don't object to 
propaganda, you object to propaganda in a bad cause. 

Professor Jones. Well, I object to propaganda 

Mr. Martin. You object to it in a bad cause. 

Professor Jones. I object to a bad cause, certainly. 

Mr. Martin. And dishonest methods. 

Professor Jones. I also object, as a scientist, to dishonest methods. 
T object as a scientist in a field that has been defined as a problem, 
and when we are going about deciding the nature of the problem, 
and its possible resolution, I would fault myself if I didn't give all 
the possible points of view that need consideration. I would con- 
sider as scientific propagandists, rather than scientists, those who 
simply give a single point of view and eliminate the alternate possi- 
bilities that are strictly within the realm of reason. 

And I believe that has been done repeatedly with the term "re- 
verse tolerance", and I think its inclusion in the Shafer Commission 
report along with a lot of other material that was incorporated in 
a highly uncritical and unfounded fashion places the report, at 
least partly, in that category. There are other aspects of the report 
that are not in discussion. 

I come now to the case of Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Uni- 
versity. Dr. Grinspoon cleverly omits references to any evidence that 
marihuana may have more than a transitory effect lasting a few 
hours. He spoofs selected examples of dramatic adverse effect so as 
to equate them with error, in order to eliminate adverse evidence. 
His book, "Marihuana Keconsidered," Harvard University Press, 
1971, has been heralded in the New York Times Book Review as 
"The Best Dope on Pot So Far." The Washington Post, May 30, 
1971, in its review by Edward Edelson of Grinspoon's book, had this 
to say: 

"[Grinspoon] is convinced that future experiments will confirm the belief that 
marihuana is an extraordinarily harmless drug. Here he may be optimistic * * * 
use of marihuana is increasing. Time and numbers are on the side of legaliza- 
tion. Dr. Grinspoon's book is part of this movement." The book followed his 
article, "Marihuana," in Scientific American, December 1969. The content of 
the article led the editor to summarize : "There is considerable evidence that the 
drug is a comparatively mild intoxicant. Its current notoriety raises interesting 
questions about the motivation of those who use it and those who seek to 
punish them." Both works show the same bias. I notice in reviewing my files that 
I marked his Scientific American publication : "This article is nothing more 
than promarihuana propaganda." That was in 1969. The intervening years 
have shown that judgment to be correct. Any competent scientist reviewing 
the medical literature on effects of cannabis would have raised a number of 
serious questions pointing strongly against the conclusion that this is an in- 
nocuous weed. To paraphrase the Scientific American Summary : "The current 
notoriety of adverse findings about the use of marihuana, being consistent with 
the older medical literature, raises interesting questions about the motivation 
of professors at distinguished universities (Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley) 
who claim safety in its use. Do they use it?" 

But the propaganda is not entirely the work of these mistaken 
persons. I accepted an invitation for a television debate with Lester 


Grinspoon to be held in Dallas in May 1971. We were to argue the 
issues for 3 hours; then the station would edit the tapes so as to 
produce a punchy hour-long program to be used nationally. I was 
familiar with Grinspoon's arguments, and I was certain that I 
bested him on each of them. Fortunately, I took the trouble to re- 
turn to Dallas about a week later for the first televised showing of 
the edited tape in Texas. There I appeared, apparently agreeing with 
every outrageous point Grinspoon made! I quickly reached the local 
station manager and voiced my complaint. The manager reviewed 
the original tape and gave me an equal hour of prime time the fol- 
lowing evening. The edited tape was never again used-— at least to 
my knowledge. Obviously, the editor had liked what Grinspoon said. 

Now I come to the case of Dr. Norman E. Zinberg : He is an assist- 
ant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard University. On my 
arrival in Boston on April 15, 1970, I read a front-page story in the 
Globe : "Study Shows Pot Non-Progressive." It reported on a press 
conference called by Dr. Zinberg to publicize a study by him and 
Andrew Weil just published in the British scientific journal, "Na- 
ture," under the title : "A Comparison of Marihuana Users and Non- 
Users." It was reported that they had completed a 2-year follow-up 
of 61 marihuana users, ranging from chronic to brand-new users, and 
had found absolutely no progression to harder drugs during that 

The facts revealed in his paper, however, are as follows: He had 
interviewed 62 prospective subjects regarding their personal histories 
and attitudes and accepted 61 of them. The 24 in the category of 
marihuana-naive were selected as "inhalers" of tobacco cigarettes. 
The remaining 37 were marihuana users : 9 "chronic" daily users, 28 
less than daily use. The study was an experiment with respect to 
those who had never used marihuana before; but all of the "com- 
parison" on which the report focuses was a retrospective study based 
on interviews with the subjects, rather than a followup. The naive 
subjects used marihuana only under Dr. Zinberg's supervision and 
had not previously tried marihuana or any of the harder drugs, 
except that two had used amphetamines occasionally to prevent 
sleepiness. The text states: 

Of the NN subjects [non-naive marihuana users], one had tried marihuana 
once, seven had taken it "a few times" ; the rest used it regularly — weekly or 
even daily. Fifteen . . . had tried hashish, and four had used LSD (2 once, 1 
twice, and one 6 times). All the C group [chronic users] had tried hashish; 
four of them had taken LSD. One subject had taken LSD twice, mescaline twice, 
and methedrine, cocaine, and heroin once each. Another had taken LSD three 
times and heroin once. Both of these had been overseas in unusual circum- 
stances when they had tried heroin several years before the interview, and 
neither had tried it again. All regular users [of marihuana] . . . said they had 
ready access to a variety of psychoactive drugs. 

In a letter to the Globe, I pointed out that Zinberg's data con- 
firmed my own findings that use of marihuana led young people to 
try harder drugs. I also commented on the fact that this was not a 
2-year follow-up. Zinberg's letter of reply glosses over these im- 
portant points and insists: 

One of the conclusions of this in-depth study of 63 subjects was that there 
was remarkably little use of drugs other than marihuana by the participants 
despite heavy marihuana use by many of them. 


The key point, however, is that 24 of the 29 regular users of mari- 
huana had tried hashish, eight of the 29 had tried LSD, two had 
tried heroin, and one had tried several other drugs, whereas none of 
the 24 nonusers had tried any of these drugs. Only marihuana users 
learn to experiment with harder drugs, and some of them become 
addicted to them. 

I have the letter here, in the Boston Globe. There was no doubt in 
my mind, and there can be no doubt, the evidence is here, I submit 
it for the record as well as my text of what this report, this man's 
study shows. 

Mr. Martin. May they be accepted as exhibits and printed in the 
appendix, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Professor Jones. There are various deficiencies in the Zinberg 
study, such as the fact that the method of selecting subjects pre- 
cluded the possibility of having addicts in the study population ; but 
it would be inappropriate to expand the analysis here. The myth of 
nonprogression from marihuana to more powerful drugs, as generated 
in this article and the accompanying press conference, has stayed in 
the promarihuana literature. Like "reverse tolerance", citation of 
this study in defense of marihuana is an indicator of pseudoscientific 
treatment of the topic of drug abuse. 

In spite of my public disclosure of the falsity of Professor Zin- 
berg's conclusion, he appeared a few weeks later as a guest on a 
nationwide TV program and gave the same presentation, claiming 
proof that marihuana users do not progress to other drugs. I com- 
plained to the network by telephone and letter, but there was no 
correction of this propaganda. 

Then there is John Kaplan. His book, "Marihuana—The New 
Prohibition," is a persuasive argument that those wishing to use 
cannabis should be allowed to use it as they wish, as is the case with 
alcohol. It is a libertarian and legal argument without scientific 
competence. The author selects evidence on only one side of the issue, 
citing a variety of writings that marihuana is a mild drug, essen- 
tially harmless. Although the legal argument is well put, it cannot 
overcome the real evidence that cannabis users are mentally dulled 
persistently and without capacity for knowing the difference. A 
legal scholar such as a Stanford University professor of law should 
have made a more thorough search for competent sources. He is 
shown to be a propagandist by the bias of his book. 

In a special class is Edward M. Brecher, principal author of 
"Licit and Illicit Drugs," the Consumers Union report on narcotics, 
stimulants, depressants, inhalants, hallucinogens, and marihuana — 
including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. 

Brecher has assembled much interesting material, and it is a com- 
pendium worth having, but only if one sets aside most of his argu- 
ments and conclusions. They simply reflect the marihuana-is-harm- 
less view. In substantiating this point, Brecher has simply used the 
promarihuana ' literature and omitted reference to authorities show- 
ing adverse effects. The hasty publication of the Consumers Union 
report without inclusion of major scientific works on the subject 
and without critical review by competent authorities has yet to be 


explained by the Consumers Union. Its publication has helped in 
the movement to legalize marihuana. 

Dr. Joel Fort of San Francisco has been another tireless worker 
for the legalization of marihuana. He states that he is against drugs 
and that marihuana should not be used. Yet, other acts and argu- 
ments presented by him have the opposite impact. I have opposed 
him in debate many times. Occasionally, depending on the kind of 
audience, he has stated that marihuana is harmless. Mostly, he draws 
a picture of a world so bad that use of marihuana is a welcome re- 
lief, as the lesser of two evils. In his teaching on the Berkeley 
campus — lecturer, School of Criminology — students report that he 
asserts that marihuana is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. 
Followers of Dr. Fort, on more than one occasion, have tried to dis- 
rupt my class on drugs, as illustrated in the attached articles from 
the Daily Californian, the daily paper of the Berkeley campus, and 
from the Berkeley Daily Gazette. 

Persons associated with the campaign to legalize marihuana have 
continued to harass my teaching activities. On the opening day of 
this quarter — April 1, 1974 — in my course on drug use and abuse, 
offensive leaflets attacking me as a person were distributed to the 
class of approximately 400 students. The source of the leaflet is not 
identified but it was rumored to be from the California Marihuana 
initiative group. Apparently this was part of a plan in which my 
class had been chosen as a target in order to gain public attention 
in the campaign for an initiative to legalize marihuana ; but the ini- 
tiative had just then failed to get enough petition signatures to be 
on the June ballot. The supporters nevertheless "gave me the treat- 

Samuel Irwin is a professor of psychopharmacology at the Uni- 
versity of Oregon Medical School. An example of his marked bias 
toward the belief that the use of marihuana is safe is contained in a 
pamphlet : "Drugs of Abuse : An Introduction to Their Actions and 
Potential Hazards". The bulk of this pamphlet is a flawless discus- 
sion of effects and hazards of drugs. Irwin fails, however, to give 
any significant warning about the considerable hazard from use of 
USD-25 or cannabis. The remarks in the section, "A Look to the 
Future", are especially disturbing: 

Drugs have positive short-term uses for recreation, for an unique experience, 
to enhance performance, to produce a change to some desired state, for con- 
trolling feelings of anger or distress (to promote well-being), or as important 
tools in learning some of what it is humanly possible to achieve in awareness, 
relationships and spiritual growth (more-being, as with LSD and marihuana). 
But the real challenge of personal development is to learn to go it alone with- 
out drugs to achieve a higher, lasting level of spiritual growth, self-actualization 
and control; it is possible in no other way. This is certainly an encouragement 
to experiment with drugs, in spite of the exhortation to "learn to go it alone 
without drugs". 


On many occasions of debate with those advocating the legaliza- 
tion of marihuana, I have listened to such statements as "even the 
conservative experts appointed by President Nixon on the Mari- 
huana [Shafer] Commission agree that it is a mild drug and should 


be legalized." Fortunately, the foolish portions of the Shafer Com- 
mission's report were too ambiguous to be convincing. 

The turnabout of William F. Buckley, Jr. in reporting (Decem- 
ber 1$72) that he had used marihuana, found it harmless, and ad- 
vises decriminalization, is a different matter. His unambiguous state- 
ment, his stature as a leader, and the reversal of his former position 
had a widespread impact, I contacted Mr. Buckley by telephone and 
letter and was led to believe that he had invited me to reply in a 
statement to his paper, the National Review. My essay was sent at 
once (December 14, 1972) but was never published, nor did Mr. 
Buckley provide an explanation for withdrawal of his invitation. 


The above listing of propagandists is by no means complete, even 
with regard to the major figures. There are prestigious persons other 
than Bill Buckley who have given occasional aid to the marihuana 
movement; the list includes Dr. Margaret Mead and Dr. Roger O. 
Egeberg. They have been silent recently ; perhaps the growing body 
of evidence against the safe use of cannabis has caused them to sense 
their error. If that is so, I urge them to speak up and redirect those 
who were misled by their earlier statements. I cannot attempt to 
provide a list of such persons; it would be very long. But the situa- 
tion is clear; many have spoken in defense of marihuana without 
valid justification. 


All about me in the educational world I observe examples of bias 
in favor of drugs. My many public letters on the subject of effects 
of marihuana have drawn answers from a few members of university 
faculties who hold that the use of marihuana is beneficial. Since these 
persons claim that they teach about drugs, I presume that they advo- 
cate the use of marihuana. In one instance I can be certain that this 
was the case. The facts cited pertain to a large course, Sociology 1, 
given in the Winter Quarter, 1973, at Berkeley. I have the statement 
of a student who gave me the study assignment sheet and the text 
of the assignment. The text is Targets for Change: Perspectives on 
an Active Sociology, edited by Bateman and Petersen, Xerox Col- 
lege Publishing, Lexington, Mass./Toronto, 1971. All of the chapters 
in this book reflect the New-Left varieties of social change, but the 
example of assigned reading is Chapter 5. Becoming a Marihuana 
User, by Howard S. Becker. Of all the promarihuana articles I have 
read, this is the most likely to induce the naive person to try the ex- 
perience and to convince the occasional user that he has set himself on 
a path toward ever-unfolding pleasure. The chapter contained no 
information of any other point of view. 

The point I wish to make is that all the students in the class were 
required to read the most persuasive argument that I have ever 
known for the use of marihuana. I think that reading it would be the 
biggest bait that a person who had not yet used marihuana might 
have, as his required reading. And anybody who is already a mari- 


huana user would read it and be certain that he has been lucky 
enough to start out on the new road to the future. 

This kind of instruction does not occur in all college classes in 
sociology, but it is a very common thing, taking the larger univer- 
sities in the United States, and many other college campuses. 

Mr. Martin. May these documents be accepted, Mr. Chairman, 
for the record, with the understanding that the subcommittee will 
exercise its discretion in deciding which of these documents if any 
to incorporate in the appendix as exhibits? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

Professor Jones. Also, at Berkeley, several other courses consider 
drug use. Dr. Joel Fort gives such a course, and the others are also 
in the hands of persons who believe in the moderate use of drugs to 
enrich life or for recreation. Perhaps most students are not fooled, 
however, since my class on drug abuse draws many more students. 
The more subtle propaganda for drugs is that which appears as an 
element of courses in psychology or sociology or anthropology in 
which the advocacy of the marihuana experience is a secondary part 
of instruction. Such examples appear to be common. 


The Federal Government, through its official commissions and 
agencies, has been one of the worst offenders in spreading the im- 
pression that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. 

I would like to offer for the record a copy of my own prepared 
testimony before the Shafer Commission. I appeared before the 
Shafer Commission, and I have no evidence whatsoever that any of 
the significant and important things I was able to tell them had any 
impact, or got to any use by the committee. Also, when I appeared 
before the Shafer Commission, I was humiliated and attacked in a 
most unbelievable way, not only by one of the promarihuana com- 
missioners, but also treated rudely and badly by Governor Shafer 

Mr. Martin. Would you be prepared to name the promarihuana 

Professor Jones. Professor Ungerleider, a colleague from the Uni- 
versity of California at Los Angeles. 

Mr. Martin. You are positive in your own mind that he is actually 
promarihuana ? 

Professor Jones. I have no doubt from the things that he has 
written, and I have a letter from him and an exchange back from me 
on this very subject in the folder. 

Mr. Martin. Would you continue? 

Professor Jones. Reports of the Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare, are inadequate scientifically, do not treat ac- 
curately the principal matters needing clarification and, in many 
instances, are likely to lead the public to believe that science has 
proven marihuana harmless. Upon the release of the HEW report 
on marihuana, 1973, the Detroit Free Press carried this story : 

Study Finds Marihuana Not Harmful * * * The definitive answer probably 
is years away, but the Federal Government, particularly the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, is commissioning many projects to find out — 


(Remember, it was HEW's surgeon general that issued the now famous ciga- 
rette warning that appears on every pack.) But one of the first HEW studies 
to be completed comes to an astonishing conclusion : Chronic use of marihuana 
has no apparent harmful effects. 

The above listing of propaganda, propagandists and invalid re- 
ports does not by any means cover all the sources of these harmful 
activities. As of May 1974, several State legislatures are considering 
bills that, if passed, will for all practical purposes, legalize mari- 
huana. In Washington, D.C., the Mayor's Advisory Committee on 
Narcotics Addiction recommended the "legal growth, manufacture, 
and supply of marihuana." The first point of the chairman, Mr. 
Frank H. Rich, was, "No demonstrable evidence is available to sup- 
port the assertion that marihuana use is hazardous or detrimental to 
the physical or mental health of the user." He acknowledged credit 
to the Shafer Report and to Professor Kaplan's book, "Marihuana — 
the New Prohibition". The sources of propaganda are cited as ref- 
erences again and again, as though they were valid, and when the 
work depends on these sources, it makes no use of the available sci- 
entific information. 


For a decade now, newspapers, journals, radio, and television have 
repeatedly featured promarihuana spokesmen like Timothy Leary, 
Joel Fort, Lester Grinspoon, and Norman Zinberg. If the principle 
of equal time were invoked, the networks would by now owe some 
hundreds of hours, at least, to scientists whose work on marihuana 
had led them to the opposite conclusion. In placing their facilities at 
the disposal of this onesided propaganda campaign, the news media 
may have succeeded in brainwashing themselves, in addition to the 
brainwashing of a substantial portion of the American public. At 
least, one cannot escape the impression that many people in the media 
now seem to have convinced themselves that marihuana is perfectly 
safe and that the public interest demands its legalization. 

The Shafer Commission Report, paraphrased, said: "Marihuana 
is harmful; however, let us decriminalize it." The propagandists in 
the media are, perhaps, somewhat more consistent. Though they 
quote the Sha»fer Report and the Consumers Union Report, they 
are likely to put the argument in these terms: "Marihuana is safe; 
let us legalize it." In the form of arguments most commonly propa- 
gated by the media, the call for legalization is almost invariably 
preceded by some kind of assurance that marihuana is safe, or at 
least relatively harmless : you use it and live without any apparent 

The form of presentation that started in the underground media 
moved upward into the "respectable" journals. I choose these ex- 
amples as flagrant propaganda : 

Esquire, July 1968, published an article by Timothy Leary, "In 
the Beginning, Leary Turned on Ginsberg and Saw that it was Good 
. . . And then Leary and Ginsberg Decided to Turn on the Whole 
World." This is a personal testimonial by Leary of the solace and 
comforting strength he claims to have found in his cult of free sex 
and drugs. 


Playboy, October 1969, carried a lead article by Joel Fort, M.D. : 
"Pot : A Rational Approach." This article is an uncritical review of 
Grinspoon, Zinberg, Weil, Mikuriya and other sources commonly 
used to give the impression that scientific findings confirm the safety 
of marihuana or at least the lack of significant adverse effects. I 
quote an excerpt: 

And marihuana, decidedly, is not a narcotic, although just what it should be 
called is something of a mystery. The tendency these days is to call it a "mild 
psychedelic," with emphasis on mild ; this is encouraged by the Tim Leary 
crowd . . . and by those to whom psychedelic is a monster word denoting hal- 
lucinations, insanity, suicide, and chaos. 

The text goes diffusely on to scramble pharmacological terms. The 
point is, Dr. Fort claims marihuana is a very mild something. The 
same Dr. Fort was quoted by the Oakland Tribune, May 26, 1966 : 

LSD THREAT LESS THAN ALCOHOLISM— LSD is dangerous enough, but 
it poses a far lesser threat to the populace than alcohol, sedatives, stimulants 
and tranquilizers, or even the use of tobacco, according to Dr. Fort. 

He was asking clergymen to help maintain an unbiased attitude 
toward this powerful new drug. Even readers of Playboy are en- 
titled to a reasonable degree of competence in a supposedly scientific 

Psychology Today, January 1973, carried an article by Timothy 
Leary: "The Principles and Practice of Hedonic Psychology and 
an Explication of the Seven Levels of Consciousness (Pleasure)." 
It is fair to say that this is an unrestrained effort to recruit the 
reader into the Leary world of marihuana and beyond. 

Surely the media have an obligation to end the one-sided exposure 
of readers and viewers to this kind of propaganda. It is, of course, 
interesting to have essays in science fiction, but is this not too much ? 
And can it qualify as science at all ? True science fiction has always 
been an extrapolation from scientific observation; these stories are 
based on illusion. 


Another important element in the barrage of promarihuana and 
prodrug propaganda is the output of our entertainment industry. 

There have been prodrug films such as "Easy Rider", which sym- 
pathetically portrayed the life of young people caught up in the 
drug culture, including the use and sale of marihuana. 

And then there was the brilliantly made but criminally damaging 
film, "Superfly," which glamorized the lives of two black cocaine 
wholesalers, in a manner which brought protests from black com- 
munity leaders in Washington. D.C., and in other cities. I quote what 
the New York Times film reviewer said about "Superfly," because I 
consider this statement to be illustrative of the blindness and toler- 
ance — yes, and the perversity — that has reduced our media in too 
many instances to handmaidens of the prodrug propagandists. Here 
is the quote: 

That the film — Superfly — does not also belong with those movies portraying 
the evils of drugs must be the result of very intelligent calculation ; for there 
is no moralizing, not even the subtle silent kind, and the film's most eloquent 
spoken passage is given to Priest's partner — Priest is "Superfly"— when he de- 
fends dealing as a way of life. 


In March 1971, Edith Efron wrote an article for TV Guide ana- 
lyzing 24 "drug dramas" that had appeared on 14 dramatic series 
over the previous year. Heroin was given uniform and negative 
treatment in the plays. Five of these plays portrayed the hazards of 
pep pills and barbiturates. But only one play dramatized the hazards 
of marihuana. Summing up, Ms. Efron said : 

What does all this add up to? It adds up to this: a flood of plays allegedly 
reflecting the contemporary white "drug culture," which soft-pedal or omit every 
major aspect of that culture, * * * which strongly intimate that the guilt for 
the drug epidemic lies with white middle-class America and its traditional 
values * * * which morally whitewash the drug takers * * * and which por- 
tray — in the case of the heroin addicts — their intense medically documented 

The recording industry has played a major role as a vehicle for 
prodrug — primarily promarihuana — propaganda. Scores of such 
songs have been recorded by folk singers and rock groups and be- 
came best sellers and top favorites of disc jockeys across the country. 
Some of the better known ones are : "White Rabbit", "Magic Carpet 
Ride", and "Comin' Into Los Angeles." 

In early 1971, the FCC issued a warning about broadcasting song 
lyrics that might encourage young people to use or experiment with 
drugs. Some of the stations reacted affirmatively to this warning. But 
some resisted. The Recording Industry Association of America peti- 
tioned the FCC to rescind its warning because, it said, the warning 
has become a "rallying cry for arbitrary action by censors and vigi- 
lantes." James Caroll, program director of WKCR-FM at Columbia 
University, told the New York Times: "For them to try to suppress 
drug songs is a tendency to stomp all 'over the First Amendment." 

I'm all for the First Amendment. I believe it was Justice Holmes, 
however, who pointed out that the First Amendment does not cover 
the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Although I am not a 
lawyer, I feel strongly that it also does not cover the right to carry 
on a false and insidious propaganda campaign in favor of drugs 
which have already destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands 
of young people — a campaign which will, if it goes unchecked, 
seriously undermine the health and morale of our people and the 
security of our Nation. 

The above observations do not reveal the full extent to which the 
broadcast media or the media of print push marihuana. Leary fol- 
lowers are abundant in the world of the media and remarks about 
pot are common, as common today as remarks about tobacco or al- 
cohol. In California during the public debate in 1972 over the initia- 
tive measure to legalize marihuana, the media were careful to try 
to obtain competent persons to present the opposing side. Making 
such presentations fatigued the few experts who could give the ac- 
curate information needed. On the promarihuana side, no expertise 
was necessary to give the argument centering on keeping the mari- 
huana user out of jail — a misleading argument, but one with appeal. 
Dr. Fort and a large number of lay persons took advantage of every 
opportunity they could to speak for the proposition. In almost every 
instance, their real argument was "It's safe." The authority quoted 
was always the Shafer Report, used in a way to obscure all the 
cautionary passages. 


The media need to do some searching; of conscience to find the 
means of achieving balance when qualified professionals are not 


Radical propaganda has also played a major role in the spread of 
the drug epidemic and, in particular, of the marihuana-hashish 

When I say "radical", I mean primarily the New Left rather 
than the Old Left. The New Left has today lost much of its strength, 
but just a few years back it was a potent force, on and off the cam- 
pus. It was a broad and variegated phenomenon. Although some of 
the organizations and leaders and publications involved in the New 
Left appeared to be "far out," or even entertaining, virtually all of 
them had to be considered revolutionary in the sense that they were 
militantly opposed to the capitalist system and the established order 
and favored the use of violent means to bring about its overthrow. 

Perhaps the principal vehicle of the New Left movement was the 
underground press. The underground press has undergone consider- 
able attrition in recent years, but not so long ago every major Amer- 
ican city had one or several underground papers, and even relatively 
small cities had their own local underground press. The small papers 
circulated no more than a few thousand copies per week; the larger 
papers had weekly circulations that ran as high as 200,000. It has 
been reported that, at the height of the phenomenon!, there were 
some 800 underground papers in the country, with a total readership 
of roughly 20,000,000 young people. 

I have yet to see an underground newspaper that was not actively 
engaged in the promarihuana propaganda campaign. Let me give you 
a few examples of their propaganda. 

Timothy Leary, the guru of the New Left drug cultists, was carried 
almost on a syndicated basis by just about the entire underground 
press. Let me quote a few of Chairman Leary's words of wisdom. 

On January 2, 1969, Leary told the Berkeley Gazette : "Drugs are 
the most efficient way to revolution * * * I'm for anything that dis- 
rupts the university. The only way a university can serve any useful 
purpose is in turning people on and making them feel good." 

On October 25, 1969, Leary wrote an article for the Los Angeles 
Free Press, an underground paper, in which he said : 

I think dealing is the noblest of all human professions, and urge any crea- 
tive young person to consider it * * * I remember talking recently to a group 
of clear-eyed, smiling, beautiful dealers. They were young men in their 
twenties, as all dealers have to be young. At that time their life situation 
was close to perfect. 

In a tape recording brought back by Jennifer Dohrn after visiting 
Leary in Algeria in October 1971, Leary said : "Blow your minds, 
and blow up the prisons and the controlling centers of the genocidal 
culture * * * The political revolutionary must be turned on to seek 
and tap his internal energy." 

I offer copies of these items for the record. 

I have here another item, from The Rat, a Bay Area underground 
paper, dated October 8, 1969. Here is a brief excerpt: "* * * when 
the youth in large numbers embraces pot, it signifies a very funda- 


mental rejection of Amerikan bourgeois society." American is spelled 
with a "k". 

The Berkeley campus had an official publication called "Orienta- 
tion." I have here an item taken from an underground counterpubli- 
cation called "Disorientation : notes from the underdog." Let me 
quote one brief paragraph: "Society hates drugs because they can 
giye people ideas and visions of beauty and love and make them 
realize that this current society has to be brought down and totally 

Mr. Martin. Do you believe the underground press exercised any 
significant influence on our young people in promoting the cannabis 
epidemic ? 

Professor Jones. I think there is no doubt whatsoever it had a 
tremendous impact. Here are other things, here is a thing related 
to the underground press which is actually a book — this is a photo 
copy part of the book — it is in the same vein, it is incredible. 

Mr. Martin. Why, if it is a New Left booklet, do you consider it 
promarihuana ? 

Professor Jones. Because from the beginning there was an inter- 
twining of the New Left with the drug movement. 

Mr. Martin. And this is representative of the book itself? 
Professor Jones. It is representative of the book itself, and there 
are many other statements, especially in the White Panther Society — 
I have a copy of their text here, too. The platform of the White 
Panthers is under point 3, and it says, "Total assault on the culture 
by any means necessary, including rock-and-roll, dope, and" — excuse 

me — " in the streets." 

I'm afraid I'm a little callous on some of these four-letter words, 

coming from a community 

Mr. Martin. It will have to be edited when the record is printed, 
Professor Jones. 

Professor — ones. This is the flag of the White Panther Society. 
You can see that over the red star there is a marihuana leaf; it is 
not a fig leaf, it is a leaf of the cannabis plant. The White Panther 
Movement may by this time have gone out of existence, but it was at 
one time a very active group. I have here as another exhibit a photo- 
graph taken at the White Panther booth at a Michigan rock festival. 
A typical example of New Left drug propaganda is a formal pub- 
lication by Lyle Stuart, Inc., New York, "The Anarchist Cook 
Book" — which I show you here. In addition to recipes for bombs to 
be made "in the kitchen," methods for the preparation of many 
drugs are given. Ordinary recipes include instructions for making 
marihuana salad, hashish soup and hashish cookies. The introductory 
chapter on drugs states : "The use of drugs comes under the birth of 
a new culture * * * The use of drugs in this new culture will be 
free * * * for there will be no more jails." And the author quotes 
Jerry Rubin : "Pot is central to the revolution. It weakens social con- 
ditioning and helps create a whole new state of mind. The slogans 
of the revolution are going to be pot, freedom, license, the bolsheviks 
of the revolution will be longhaired pot smokers." x 

1 The original quotation is from Avant-Garde. N.Y., March 1969, p. 33. Article by Peter 
Sehieldahl, "Thoughts of Chairman Jerry." 




(The body of the flag is black; the center star is red; the superimposed mari- 
juana sprig is green) 

I have in the files that I have brought here today and in my files 
at Berkeley literally thousands of such items, culled from the under- 
ground press and leftist publications. There is absolutely no doubt 
my mind 'that the total impact of this propaganda, endlessly re- 
peated in hundreds of underground papers across the country and in 
thousands of tracts, played a major role in the spread of the drug 

The underground newspapers were generally not identified with 
any specific New Left organization, although they shared the New 


Left ideology. The formal organizations in the New Left movement 
were divided on the issue of marihuana. SDS — Students for a Demo- 
cratic Society— to the best of my knowledge, did not encourage the 
use of marihuana, although its members were far from being drug 
teetotalers. Marihuana has been regarded with favor, however, by 
the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the White Panthers, Leary's 
Brotherhood of Eternal Love, and, currently, by the Symbionese 
Liberation Army. In the case of the last-named organization, I have 
a document which shows that marihuana is used in a ritualistic 
manner by the SLA. 

It must not be imagined that these New Left revolutionaries were 
ineffective because they were so strange — even kooky. The thing that 
made the New Left revolutionaries effective despite their strange 
ways was that they were always sensational news ; and they were, in 
consequence, frequently able to exploit the curiosity of the press in 
order to promote their promarihuana propaganda. In his book, 
"Future Shock," author Allen Tomer quoted this passage from a 
letter written by New Left poet Allen Ginsberg to Timothy Leary : 

Yesterday I got on TV with N. Mailer and with Ashley Montagu and gave 
big speech * * * recommending everybody get high * * * Got in touch with all 
the liberal prodope people I know to have [a certain prodrug report] publi- 
cized and circulated. I wrote a five-page summary of the situation to this friend 
Kenny Love on The New York Times and he said he'd perhaps do a story (news- 
wise) * * * which could then be picked up by U.P. friend on national wire. Also 
gave copy to Al Aronowitz on New York Post and Rosalind Constable at Time 
and Bob Silvers on Harper's * * *. 

It is to be regretted that our media — including reputable news- 
papers and TV personalities and publishers — permitted themselves 
to be used bv the New Left propagandists. As an illustration of what 
I mean bv "permitted themselves to be used," I have here a copy of 
"The Little Red School Book," which was published by the Pocket 
Book Division of Simon & Schuster. "The Little Red School Book" 
is a militant New Left sensualist manual, written at a junior high 
school level. It gives explicit instructions on how to take over the 
classroom, intimidate the teacher, engage in sexual intercourse, mas- 
turbate, take the pill, on how to become involved in expanded sexual 
experiences, and on how to use drugs. On page 183, it reads : 

"Remember, being high can be fun. But don't count on working 
or learning anything while the sensation lasts." 

The Communist Party itself has not participated in the promari- 
huana propaganda campaign or in the campaign to legalize mari- 
huana. I think it is important to note, however, that Bettina 
Aptheker, one of the top leaders of the Berkeley uprising and an 
identified Communist, never dissociated herself from the militant pro- 
pot propaganda which characterized the uprising and which, over a 
period of several months, raised the use of pot on the Berkeley 
campus to epidemic proportions. This, as I have pointed out, was the 
beginning of the national epidemic: from Berkeley the epidemic 
spread out to other campuses, then down into the high schools and 
the junior high schools, and now down into the grade schools and up 
into the adult ranks of both the blue collar workers and the middle 

The Communist Party says that it is against the use of marihuana. 
However, when Bettina Aptheker had an opportunity to use her 


immense prestige with the Berkeley students to speak out strongly 
against marihuana and to oppose it at the inception of the national 
epidemic — she failed to do so. 

The Trotskyists and Maoists have also not participated in the pro- 
marihuana propaganda, and, at least in the case of the Trotskyists— 
I do not know about the Maoists — are on record as opposing the use 
of the drug. 

It is interesting to note, however, that when the Communists, 
Trotskyists, and Maoists, cooperating despite their differences, 
brought hundreds of thousands of young people to Washington to 
protest against the Vietnam war, the air of the greater Washington 
area was heavy with pot smoke for the duration of the demonstra- 
tion. There is no record of any spokesman for the major Old Left 
organizations using his command position in the demonstration to 
discourage the use of pot. And one is compelled to ask : Why ? 

In his testimony last Friday, Dr. Andrew Malcolm, a Toronto 
psychiatrist, told the subcommittee that marihuana makes people far 
more suggestible and therefore far more open to manipulation. This 
coincides with my own experience with some 1,600 marihuana smokers 
over an 11 -year period. I am convinced that people under the per- 
sisting influence of marihuana can be easily manipulated by dema- 
gogs of the extreme left or of the extreme right. Marihuana smokers, 
in short, would be grist for the mill of any future totalitarian move- 
ment. Dangerous political consequences may flow from the fact that 
we already have in our society a body of some millions of chronic 
users that continues to grow in an exponential manner. 

Perhaps the role played by pot in enhancing suggestibility is the 
reason why the Old Left leaders of the anti- Vietnam demonstrations 
did nothing to discourage the use of pot among the demonstrators — 
despite programmatic statements which appear to oppose the use 
of pot. 


My extensive interviews with drug users and with persons who 
do not use drugs permit some deductions about the variations in the 
population by subgroups' tendencies to use cannabis. Economic 
status has little to do with these variations. Strong religious faith, 
whether Christian, Jewish, or other, appears to give resistance to 
the drug. Strong family ties, more frequently found in connection 
with strong faith, also appear to reduce involvement. In my work 
with the black community, a scourge of multiple drug use is already 
evident as an endemic situation; special efforts may be necessary, 
but such efforts are likely to get community support. The situation 
calls for urgent action ; the longer we wait, the more difficult it will 
be to reverse the trend. 

With regard to the United States as a whole, there is no com- 
munity free of the problem ; it is now as widespread in the rural as 
in the urban communities. In some respects the rural youth are worse 
off because no counterdrug activities were organized there since it 
was felt that these youngsters were not susceptible to the epidemic; 
but it has simply reached these parts of the country later. As a 
result, the harm from cannabis might be kept low in rural areas 
through prompt action because the average length of use of cannabis 


is less. This is how I stated the problem in 1968 in a booklet that 
had more than 1 million copies distributed : "Social pressures among 
the young to use the dangerous drugs are widespread and, unless the 
trend is reversed, as much as half of this generation of young people 
may acquire crippling drug addiction or habituation." To that state- 
ment we need only add the genetic hazard. 


Now, Senator, I have taken more time than I should have, but I 
wish to bring to your attention and the attention of the subcommittee 
four points that I think are very important for you to consider. 

1. The first step toward correction has been attained with these 
hearings— the defining of the problem. The summary papers, rep- 
resenting nearly the full array of scientific information on the sub- 
ject of cannabis abuse in the world, will soon be in print. It is im- 
pressive in the extent to which all sources are in agreement. 

There are several examples of the effectiveness of accurate infor- 
mation alone in reducing the abuse of drugs. Therefore, the first 
recommendation is to make the findings of these hearings available 
throughout the country without delay. Congress as a whole or the 
Senate should distribute the hearings at once to local and State 
governments and to schools, colleges, and public libraries. 

2. It is recommended that a special task force on drug education 
should be appointed by the President, with its members selected from 
the ranks of those scientists who have sought to face up to the prob- 
lem rather than to pretend that there is no problem. 

3. A working group of experts should immediately plan and formu- 
late methods for rehabilitating the large numbers of drug-using per- 
sons who may seek rehabilitation in response to an intensive educa- 
tional campaign. Heavy cannabis users need approximately the same 
degree of care in becoming rehabilitated as do narcotic addicts. 

4. Somehow, the legal and organizational means must be found to 
counter the massive, unopposed promarihuana propaganda cam- 
paign that is still going on in our country. I suggest the Presidential 
appointment of a second task force of leaders in science, medicine, 
communications, and other appropriate fields, to study the prob- 
lem and to maintain a watchful view over published materials and 
broadcasts so as to detect propaganda supporting drug use and to 
respond promptly, factually, and forcefully in such instances. 

I will close with that, sir. 

Mr. Martin. That concludes your statement? 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions. 

Senator Thurmond. You may go ahead and ask your questions. 

Mr. Martin. As an expert on radiation, Professor Jones, is there 
any observation you would like to make in connection with Dr. 
Axelrod's work on the retention of THC in the brain and other fatty 
tissue ? I ask this question because Dr. Axelrod's research was, as you 
know, conducted with radioactively tagged THC. 

Professor Jones. I was hoping that I would have a chance to dis- 
cuss that privately with Dr. Axelrod, but I suppose I might just as 
well engage in this forum. 


I followed all the radioactive work, including Dr. Axelrod's and 
his colleagues'; and I do know, however, that the ease with which 
radiation labels can be detected is in part in these techniques related 
to how rapidly it moves into and out of the body tissues. 

I notice in Dr. Axelrod's study and those of others that there is 
still in the order of 20 to 10 percent of THC labeled that is unac- 
counted for either as THC, or some of the immediate metabolites 
which still retains impactment in the body well beyond a week. And, 
although I can't prove it, I can fit very good models to this which 
suggest that this residue which is retained in the body, in the order 
of 10 to 20 percent, may persist in the body for a very, very long time, 
constant indeed, such as would be removed from tissues probably at 
a rate of about 10 percent a month. And this of course, the 10 per- 
cent a month, would match the loss of toxic symptoms that we see in 
individuals that are poisoned by cannabis. 

Mr. Martin. From your experience with marihuana users, Profes- 
sor Jones, I want to ask you a question I asked all the other psy- 

Do you regard the so-called amotivational syndrome as a hypoth- 
esis that has yet to be proven, or as a scientifically established fact? 

Professor Jones. I regard it as a scientific established fact because 
I have yet to see a qualified observer that didn't see it in marihuana 
users. I have interviewed 1,600 of them, and I did see some degree of 
amotivational syndrome in all of them, including some of the bright- 
est university students that I have had. The level of dosage that may 
be concerned in amotivational syndrome tends to be in heavier doses, 
but I still have a number of individuals in whom I can be relatively 
certain from a clinical point of view that their use of marihuana has 
been confined to a few times per month, and that they can still have 
the amotivational symptoms. Now, it's difficult to know, because 
behavior and brain function is so complicated, as to what particular 
change, or changes, the amotivational symptom produces. 

I would prefer to say that I monitor probably in the order of 20 
separate characteristics of brain functions in my interviews from a 
clinical assessment point of view, and that nearly all of them show 
some degree of change ; and that there is a difference in the pattern 
from user to user, depending upon dose. So, the great observation 
that we have from these hearings is reinforcement of that, that all 
of us who see and carefully evaluate cannabis users detect in them, 
even when it's over, even up to months beyond their use of cannabis, 
residual effects on brain and behavioral functions. 

Mr. Martin. Is this damage to the brain reversible, in your opinion? 

Professor Jones. Within my own experience I cannot answer that 
question. But, I have had individuals, students, whom I have been 
able to follow for several years that, although they have made remark- 
able progress back towards being normal functional human beings, 
they still have some "kookiness" about them which would best be 
described as effects of cannabis. But, unfortunately I didn't know 
them before. 

Mr. Martin. How long do you have to smoke marihuana, and how 
much do you have to smoke a week to bring about that kind of 
brain damage? 

Professor Jones. There is some disagreement among us here. I 
point out Dr. Campbell's analysis in England, who did the first study, 


undoubtedly was measuring individuals that had very great sensi- 
tivity to cannabis, that there was brain atrophy and I believe the 
data that we have because in many ways the findings have been 
amply confirmed, and confirmed in these hearings, that these indi- 
viduals did get brain atrophy of a significant kind in the very areas 
of the brain that were predicted to be subject to atrophying from the 
effects of cannabis. 

But we still don't know whether the average cannabis user, espe- 
cially those that seem to use cannabis with more impunity, might get 
these effects. But, I would prefer to think, at least from the stand- 
point of cautioning individuals that anyone using cannabis may be 
inducing in the brain some of these things. 

Mr. Martin. I would ask you to keep your answers as brief as 
possible, Professor Jones, because we are running out of time. 

Which do you consider the most dangerous — the more dangerous — 
cannabis or alcohol ? 

Professor Jones. There is no doubt that cannabis is many times 
more dangerous. I have often commented on that by saying, 30 times 
more dangerous. 

Mr. Martin. Could you in 1 minute, or 2 minutes, tell us why? 

Professor Jones. You are asking me to be brief. Well, the changes 
to dependency occur in those that become dependent 30 times faster 
with cannabis than they do with alcohol. The brain damage that we 
see in an alcoholic, and its equivalent to cannabis use, too; but you 
won't find among teenagers, or those in their 20's, even though they 
are alcoholics, the kind of brain damage you see in cannabis users 
who are daily, heavy cannabis users ; and they already have all the 
signs of advanced Parkinson's degeneration of the brain, and other 
brain changes, too, of a totally irreversible nature, and are only 18 
or 19 years of age. 

Mr. Martin. A question that has been raised is why we don't have 
widespread noticeable effects of the cannabis epidemic. The epidemic 
is a big one ; cannabis, as you say, is very dangerous and destructive 
to the body and mind. Wny is it so difficult to perceive the conse- 
quences, or why do most people have difficulty in perceiving the 
consequences ? 

Professor Jones. Well, the cannabis user changes gradually; he 
drifts into whatever society will support him. He will remain at 
home, supported by parents; mooching off relatives, mooching off 
friends ; living off charity, living off grants in a college community, 
or just being a bum, or whatever, if he is badly affected. So, we don't 
see the individuals listed and categorized in our tabulation of diseases. 
And because they have also, at least not as yet, not started dying with 
a tremendously high death rate, although I think that will change 
very rapidly. But, there has been little public awareness. The drug 
user tends to remain hidden within the population, that is also true 
of heroin, they are largely being cared for at the expense of middle- 
class society, a terrible burden on those who are still working in the 
parental class. But, the situation will change markedly as the family 
resources become exhausted and the individuals who are now sup- 
porting them approach retirement age. 

Mr. Martin. What you are saying, I think, is that this is a very 
insidious drug, which permits the user to look relatively normal, at 
least to the untrained observer that has no way of knowing that he 


is a cannabis user. But he is nevertheless seriously maimed, it has 
reduced his ability to perform either as a brain worker, or as a 
mechanical, let's say, blue collar worker. 

Professor Jones. Well, I don't think there will be many individuals 
who are high class and use cannabis. And all of us should be worried 
right now about the fact that so many medical students and young 
physicians are using cannabis. I personally don't think a cannabis 
user can take responsibility for another person because this part of 
his brain is missing, it's not connected, it's not working. He is highly 
prone to make errors in a situation which is new. He can carry out 
routine things, but his ability to function becomes worse and not 
better. The average person, especially in their young, pre-middle age 
period, grows and mature noticeably in every passing year. The 
cannabis user either remains stationary or regresses in mental powers 
back to childhood. 

Mr. Martin. You feel that abandoning the prohibition would have 
a more serious result than abandoning the prohibition on the use of 
alcohol ? 

Professor Jones. I believe every time drugs are made freely and j 
legally available that use increases. I have never talked with anyone, ] 
including drug users, who didn't believe that cannabis use would ] 
increase if it was legalized. Most young people who do not now use j 
drugs tell me the reason they do not use drugs is because it's illegal. ] 
And I think many of them now in the near absence of good, cau- j 
tionary information, would be tempted to use cannabis if it was , 
legalized, and it is more likely that they would be trapped in that j 
decision than getting enough wisdom and making an independent j 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Professor Jones; there are j 
many more questions I would like to ask you, but our time is running j 
out rapidly. We still have Mr. Cowan to testify, and I will have to < 
terminate my questions. 

Professor Jones. I am sorry to have cut into Mr. Cowan's time 
because I know he has many things to tell us. 

Mr. Martin. You cut into your own time, too. Thank you very 

Mr. Chairman, may the additional documents which Professor Jones 
offered for the record be incorporated at the discretion of the sub- 
committee in the appendix material ? 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. 

If counsel has any further questions he wishes to prepare, and have 
these witnesses respond to, if they would kindly do that, those could 
be included in the record. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Thurmond. They could be done in writing and included 
as part of the record ; they have already been sworn. 

Mr. Martin. That would simplify the matter greatly, Mr. Chair- 

[The following questions and answei'9 were subsequently supplied 
for the record :] 

Question. Dr. Jones, Dr. Malcolm made the point that marihuana users have 
impaired judgment under the acute effects of marihuana. Would you comment 


on this point, particularly in regard to your statement that your observations, 
largely of students, were made while they were not acutely affected? 

Answer. I have found that cannabis users, while not acutely intoxicated, per- 
sistently show a pattern of undesirably altered mental functions: 

(1) They use non sequitur in speech — that is, their conclusions do not follow 
from their premises — and they preferentially accept non sequitur from others. 

(2) They are easily induced into risky, impetuous, and foolish behavior, such 
as acceptance of heroin, LSD, other dangerous drugs, and homosexual expe- 
riences, which are afterwards regretted. 

(3) There is a narrowing of the usually wide range of facial expressions that 
reflect the complexity of thought formation; the habitual facial expression 
tends to become a mask. 

(4) There are gaps and abrupt transitions in expressing their thoughts. 

(5) There is usually pallor of the face and almost no changes of color with 
the emotions of social discourse ; blushing is reduced or absent altogether. 

(6) Weakening of short-term memory often appears in conversations; sig- 
nificant points comprehended early in the conversation escape a few minutes 

These effects are probably less marked in university students than in other 
cannabis-using persons of the same age. University students are probably not 
as indolent as the average cannabis user because those most heavily affected 
undoubtedly drop out of college. Among the cannabis-using students I have 
known, those with the most severely depressed mental activity have indeed quit 
college. There are also many testimonials of such dropouts who quit cannabis 
and were able, after several months, to return to their former activities, in- 
cluding their studies. 

I also have seen a few relatively heavy cannabis users who are impetuous 
rather than repressed into inactivity. From my partially formed opinion about 
them, they probably continue to function because of superior intellect. But they 
are still affected, showing the non sequitur, the masked face, pallor, and rash 

I am concerned about cannabis-using physicians I have seen among the re- 
cent graduates of our medical schools. There are reports that as many as half 
the medical students of the last 5 years have been using cannabis. Some of them 
unquestionably drop the habit before they become practicing physicians — but 
many do not. I have talked briefly with approximately 40 young physicians who 
report using cannabis. At least a quarter of them show the physiological 
changes I have described. They defend cannabis use by quoting the medical 
pseudoscience — but they have never examined the scientific studies. 

In view of the life-and-death responsibilities of physicians, impairment of 
their judgment by cannabis use must be regarded as a major threat to the 
public welfare. 

Question. Dr. Jones, in your testimony you state that the number of drug 
users of each kind has been increasing by approximately 7 percent per month 
in recent years. Is this intended as a firm estimate — or are you offering this 
figure as the median of a range of estimates? I ask this question because from 
my own reading of the literature, it doesn't appear that we have sufficient in- 
formation to make a precise estimate possible. 

Answer. Yes ; I should clarify my calculations. I have used various rough 
methods to measure the rate of increase in drug users. The range is 5 to 10 
percent increase per month since 1965. The median, or average of all of them 
is 7 percent per month. The rate is similar if we consider separately the users 
of marihuana, hashish, or opiates, the extent of barbiturate or heroin addiction, 
the records of drug arrests, or the quantities of drugs seized in illicit drug 
traffic. In May 1974, my statistics on University of California men show that 
15% of freshmen, 35% of sophomores, 58% of juniors, and 90% of seniors use 
cannabis. The year-to-year increase turns out to be exponential — like compound 
interest — but the rate depends on whether we assume that the compounding 
goes on only during the nine months of the school year or throughout the 
twelve months of the calendar year. The rate of increase in percentage of can- 
nabis users during a 4-year university education is then 6% per month (as- 
suming 12 months of exposure) or 8% per month (assuming 9 months of 

Question. When you say that the epidemic has been spreading at an average 


rate of 7 percent per month and that this rate is exponential — wouldn't such a I 
rate of increase completely saturate our society in just a few years time? ' 
Wouldn't there have to be a leveling off somewhere along the line? 

Answer. You are quite right. The 7 percent figure is characteristic of an epi- i 
demic at the height of its spread, when there is still a large susceptible popula- j 
tion. This is where we stand with the marihuana epidemic today. Obviously, it 
can't go on at this rate indefinitely. Even if nothing is done, somewhere along 
the line it has to level off, because the susceptible population categories have 
been saturated. If nothing is done to bring it under control, however, the epi- 
demic is going to level off at very high point. With a concerted campaign, we can 
get the curve to level off sooner, and then, hopefully, turn it downwards. 

Question. The subcommittee has received testimony suggesting that marihuana 
must be regarded as a kind of universal threshold drug which frequently leads 
to the use of other drugs, including the opiates. On the other hand, it has been 
stated in the Shafer report and elsewhere that there is no evidence that the use 
of marihuana leads to heroin addiction. Does your own experience throw any 
light on this aspect of the problem? 

Answer. That marihuana does lead to the use of other drugs has been estab- 
lished by many studies. For example, the Annals of Internal Medicine for 1970 
carried a survey of college students by Crompton and Brill which reported that 
100 percent of heavy marihuana smokers used other drugs ; 22 percent of those 
who smoked marihuana monthly used other drugs ; while no other drugs had 
been used by those who never smoked marihuana. 

The assumption that cannabis use does not lead to heroin comes from mis- 
leading statements such as, "marihuana does not necessarily lead to the use of 
heroin." As so stated, it is true, for most cannabis users in the United States 
have not taken up the use of heroin, even occasionally. It is also true that some 
cannabis users will never use heroin ; however, at least half the cannabis users 
are susceptible to the temptations and invitations to try heroin. 

The association between marihuana and subsequent heroin use is indeed re- 
markably high. In my recent drug history sampling of 400 college men, 280 took 
up use of cannabis in some regular pattern, and after that 40 percent of them 
(118 cases) used heroin or other opiates one or more times. One hundred twenty 
had not used cannabis ; none had tried heroin. From interviews of soldiers in 
Vietnam in 1972, I found the soldiers who smoked tobacco cigarettes were often 
offered cigarettes laced with heroin. The tobacco smokers declined the offer if 
they did not also use cannabis. Not all cannabis smokers accepted heroin-laced 
cigarettes, but the majority did over a period of prolonged contact. In the United 
States over the past 2 to 6 years, 0.5 to 1 million heroin addicts have come from 
the cannabis-using subpopulation. This has been estimated at 30 to 35 million, of 
which several million use cannabis daily ) . The transfer from cannabis to heroin 
addiction is approximately 3 percent per year, and the transfer from cannabis 
use to some heroin use is about 7 percent per year (Use of opiates infrequently 
enough to avoid frank addiction is, at this time, more widespread than addictive 

In a study of 850 hashish users in Cairo done by Professor Soueif at the re- 
quest of the Egyption Government (Soueif, Bulletin on Narcotics 23: No. 4, 
Oct.-Dec. 1971), it was found that the transfer to opium use from hashish use 
was 3 percent per year, exactly in agreement with my findings in the United 
States. The graph submitted by Professor Soueif when he testified clearly estab- 
lishes that the incidence of opiate use is directly related to the number of years 
of hashish exposure. 

When I stated to my drug abuse class in April 1973 my statistical computation 
that about 10 percent (approximately 3 percent per year) of daily marihuana 
users in the United States have become heroin addicts in the 3-year period 1969- 
1972, I was challenged. A group of procannabis students conducted a poll which 
they proclaimed, both in advance and on completion of their findings, to show 
that I was wrong. Based upon 50 percent returns from 700 mailed questionnaires, 
they showed 2 percent of students to be heroin addicts. What they did not reveal 
in their press release was that 5 percent of the marihuana users or about 10 per- 
cent of daily users were heroin addicts. Allowing for statistical fluctuations in 
samplings of this size, and for the fact that heroin addicts are likely to drop out 
of college, this survey is a good confirmation of my statement that about 10 per- 
cent of daily marihuana users in the United States as a whole have become ad- 
dicted to heroin. 


When we look at the problem from the other direction, the association between 
heroin and prior cannabis use is even more startling. Most surveys of heroin users 
show that the prior use of cannabis is in the range of 85 percent to 100 percent. 
In my own studies of drug users, where I employ the interview technique (which 
I find more reliable than the survey technique to obtain such mformation), the 
percentage is close to 100 percent. In 102 consecutive cases of heroin-using 
soldiers, all had used cannabis regularly prior to taking up the use of heroin In 
367 additional heroin addicts interviewed by me in the United States, only 4 had 
not used cannabis prior to heroin use. .. « 

Another misleading statement often made by the advocates for the legalization 
of marihuana, namely, that "all heroin users drank milk as infants" is foolish, 
the assumption being that marihuana is no more a stepping stone to heroin use 
than is milk. We could equally say "all heroin users were born." It is true that 
the majority of heroin users undoubtedly drank milk as infants. About 100 per- 
cent drank milk, and about 100 percent have used marihuana. But from the other 
direction, of those born, or who drank milk, only 1 percent use heron, while 
the marihuana users, 30 to 40 percent have tried heroin— too high to dispute the 
cause and effect relationship. 

Although the nature of the transfer from cannabis to heroin (or to other 
drugs) is not completely known, there are some explainable reasons : 

a. Peer pressure and depressed good judgment ; 

b. Desire for increased senusual effects ; 

c. Suppression of judgment brought about by chronic use of cannabis ; 

d. Crosstolerance. 

Although medical texts cite there is no evidence of crosstolerance between can- 
nabis and opiates in humans, there are animal behavioral studies that show cross- 
tolerance. Some degree of similar chemical action would be expected because of 
the marked similarity in chemical structure between opiates and cannabinols. In 
my studies, daily users who have transferred to heroin use do not show cannabis 
withdrawal symptoms (restlessness, sleeplessness, etc.) — indeed an indication of 
crosstolerance. Crosstolerance, then, enables the cannabis user to have increased 
sensual effects from heroin without the unpleasant withdrawal symptoms of 

From the fact that some observers of heroin-using soldiers reported, in 1971, 
a small fraction who began heroin use without first using cannabis, I postulated 
that as a larger fraction of soldiers or civilians became heroin addicts and heroin 
advocates, there would be more direct assumption of heroin taking without prior 
use of cannabis. This has not turned out to be the case. In 1971 essentially all 
heroin users first used cannabis ; they do now also. 

Question. I have another question to ask with regard to your estimate that 
the number of drug users of each kind has been increasing by approximately 
7 percent per month in recent years. There does appear to have been some re- 
duction in the use of heroin and LSD over the last two years, does there not? 

Answer. That is correct. There has been an improvement because there has 
been an all-out campaign of public education by various government agencies, 
which has been completely supported by the media. But there has been no 
comparable campaign directed against marihuana, hashish, amphetamines or 
other drugs — and in the case of these drugs, we are still afflicted by a continu- 
ing monthly increase in their consumption. Marihuana is perhaps the worst of 
all because', as I have pointed out in my previous testimony, there has over the 
past decade been a massive campaign of deceptive propaganda designed to make 
potential users believe that it is relatively innocuous and that it affords 
pleasures that cannot be found with any other drug or in any other way. 

Question. In observations on effects of cannabis, can you make a further dis- 
tinction for us between scientific evidence and clinical evidence that marihuana 
is perhaps without harm at some level of use? Do any scientists actually say 
that, it is safe? 

Answer. Clinical evidence is derived from an experienced person's subjective 
interpretation of symptoms of health and disease, such as subtle irregularities 
in the sound of the heartbeat or the sounds produced by thumping the chest. 
Diagnoses made scientifically by using the physical record produced by the elec- 
trocardiogram or the chest X ray are more objective. A group of physicians 
may examine and discuss such a record and come to a consensus on the most 
probable interpretation. Thus, the scientific measurement results In a smaller 


range of difference of opinion. In practice, both kinds of observations are 
needed because they do not necessarily measure the same functions. 

In estimating the effects of drugs, behavior Lnd mental functions are ex- 
tremely important; they are not (except in rare instances) correlated with 
electroencephalograms, X rays, or chemical measurements of blood or cerebro- 
spinal fluid. Consequently, we have to rely chiefly on clinical evidence or soft 
data, in contrast to hard data from chemical or physical measurements. In a 
few cases, hard data have confirmed some of our clinical observations. For 
example, many of us had concluded that there are pleasure centers in the brain 
that are somewhat selectively affected by sensual drugs. In my published pa- 
pers I had come to the clinical conclusion that cannabis first stimulates and 
then depresses the appreciation of pleasure, and so have Drs. Kolansky and 
Moore and others. We have used the terms, "sensory deprivation" and "de- 
personalization," in describing this toxic effect deduced from our clinical 
studies. Now, Dr. Heath has physically located the pleasure centers in humans 
so that there can be no doubt about their existence ; his observations are hard 

Most toxic substances appear to have a threshold of dose below which the 
body can cope with their harmful effects so that no scientific or clinical evi- 
dence of damage is apparent. A few substances, such as salts of the heavy 
me tals — for example, lead or mercury — tend to accumulate in the body, usually 
in a specific organ. In that event, the effect of continual exposure to small 
doses is long delayed ; the damage may not appear clinically for years, and it 
has sometimes been difficult to associate the effect with its cause. 

There is hard scientific evidence that THC does accumulate in the brain and 
is removed very slowly. This was the subject of Dr. Axelrod's testimony. No 
scientist could therefore pronounce marihuana "safe" at any level of continuous 
use. The amount of damage may be too small to measure, but the only valid 
conclusion from the evidence is that some damage must occur with persistent 
use of marihuana. There is no process by which science can prove any sub- 
stance completely safe ; it can only report that the known tests to detect cer- 
tain kinds of injury have yielded negative results. In this case, the tests for 
THC in the brain gave positive rather than negative results, so science cannot 
be called upon to endorse marihuana use. 

Question. Do you think the significance of Dr. Axelrod's work has been ade- 
quately understood? 

Answer. Let me add to what I have already said on the subject of Dr. Axel- 
rod's work. The work of Dr. Axelrod and his colleagues* establishes the highly 
significant point that the active ingredient of cannabis stays long in the body. 
In a week's observation of human volunteers who were given aliquots of radio- 
actively labeled delta-9 THC, only 65 to 70% of the material had been elim- 
inated from the body by the end of one week. Of the residue in the body, as 
tested by analysis of blood samples, the major fraction was still in the form of 
delta-9 THC or its psychoactive metabolite 11-hydroxy-THC. 

There tends to be considerable misconception in the current literature over 
the significance of this pattern of retention. I make the following points, based 
on analysis of the quantitative data reported by Axelrod et al. 

1. Although the blood levels of THC decline during the first few days with a 
half-time of 1 to 2 days, the continued appearance of THC residues in the 
urine and the feces indicates that the remainder of the THC has moved from 
the blood to storage in other body reservoirs, from which it is removed with 
half times of one week or longer. 

2. In Dr. Axelrod's human studies, there was no analysis of uptake by body 
fat or in brain or other organs. Some deductions can be made, however, from 
the companion studies he made on rats given radioactive delta-9 THC. The reser- 
voir of retention of THC in the rat is body fat, and the THC absorbed by the 
fat is given up slowly. This effect can be measured by the uptake of THC in 
fat under conditions of repeated administration of labeled THC and by the 
disappearance from fat when a single injection of the drug is administered. 
The nearly linear accumulation of THC by fat over a 28-day period in which 

* Analysis of the Metabolic Fate of delta-9 THC In Findings Reported by Dr. Julius 
Axelrod and His Associates: Pharmacological Reviews S3: (4) 371-380. 1971; Science 
170: 1320-1322. 1970 and 179: 391-393, 1973; Annals of the N.Y. Acad. Scl. 
191: 142-154, 1971 (See Appendix). 


equal quantities of labeled THC were administered every other day, clearly 
indicates that there is long-term retention of the THC in fat. In these obser- 
vations in rats, it appears that the fat releases THC with a half-time of sev- 
eral weeks. Thus, the daily rate of loss approximates only 1 to 3%. 

3. The slow release of THC from fat, as observed in rats, tends to imply 
similar retention of THC in humans who smoke marihuana and hashish. We can 
expect that the retention of THC in fatty tissues of humans is longer than In 
the rat because the rat's metabolic rate is about three times greater than the 
human rate. Thus, release of labeled THC from human fat is likely to have a 
half-time approximating a few months rather than a few weeks as in the rat. 

4. It may be a coincidence that the rate of disappearance of THC from the 
human body as measured by appearance in the urine and feces is approximately 
the same as the rate of disappearance of THC from the fat of rats. 

5. In the THC studies, the metabolic processes most likely to be detected are 
those with the fastest rates of turnover, since they produce the highest con- 
centrations of the labeled material. Thus, the data obtained by Axelrod on the 
elimination of THC probably describe only the more rapid processes, while the 
20 to 30% residue of labeled THC is removed remarkably slowly, requiring 
weeks for certain, and probably months, to be eliminated. The rate of removal 
may, in fact, match the slow regression of mental symptoms on abstinence from 
cannabis abuse, which occurs at approximately 10% reduction in symptoms per 

6. The retention of THC and its metabolites in brain tissue is an important 
consideration. The Axelrod observations show that the rat brain's cumulative 
concentration of labeled THC is about 5% that of liver and 1% that of body 
fat when THC was administered every other day for 28 days. Apparently, most 
of the THC taken into the body goes to body fat (perhaps the uptake in vis- 
ceral organs depends on fat content) while the brain gets a small fraction. 
Assuming that the distribution of THC derived from smoking cannabis is the 
same in humans as that of injected THC in the rat and that the average ex- 
posure to THC through marihuana smoking causes 10 milligrams to enter the 
body, then less than 1% of it would be deposited in the brain. This would mean 
that the amount of THC or its metabolites that affects the brain is indeed 
small, since a dosage of 0.1 milligram or 100 micrograms distributed to the 
whole brain would induce intoxication. It also suggests that a few hundred 
micrograms of the active material held for a long time in the human brain may 
be responsible for the persistent effects associated with the behavioral changes 
seen in chronic marihuana users. 

I wish to make another statement of some importance based upon the same 
point, that only a small quantity of the active ingredients of marihuana in- 
jures the brain. At least one research project in California sponsored by the 
National Institutes of Health is giving to human volunteers injections of sev- 
eral hundred milligrams of pure delta-9 THC, also supplied by the National 
Institutes of Health. These quantities in single applications, especially within 
the blood stream, hazard real damage to brain tissue. 

Question. Dr. Axelrod expressed the belief that marihuana may result in 
"reverse tolerance," and he offered an explanation for this observation. From 
your past writings, I know that you believe the concept of reverse tolerance is 
based on erronous observations. Could you tell us why you believe this con- 
cept to be in error? 

Answer. Dr. Axelrod believes that "reverse tolerance" — that is, the develop- 
ment of a given effect with smaller and smaller doses as use of marihuana 
continues — is explained y the fact that, with heavy marihuana use, there is 
increased enzyme conversion of the delta 9-THC to the more active 11-hydroxy- 
THC. I have every confidence in his work and do not doubt that this phenom- 
enon plays a part in the effects I have observed in persons during their initia- 
tion into marihuana use. 

From my studies of cannabis users, I find that the first few smokes of reefers 
produce minimal effects ; whether the person consumes 4 to 6 all at once or 
over a period of several weeks, he does not "turn on" until about the 4th to the 
6th "joint." He has now reached his most sensitive level because of the accu- 
mulation of THC in his system, perhaps augmented by the conversion noted by 
Dr. Axelrod ; and, for the next few times, he may renew the high by smoking 
just part of a reefer. He is likely to remain at that level of tolerance for a 


time; but later on, he finds it necessary to increase the dosage, and usually 
the frequency also, in order to get the same effect. I interpret these observations 
to mean that THC accumulation is the chief cause of the seeming "reverse 
tolerance" that brand new users display, but that the habitual user eventually 
experiences true tolerance— the need for larger amounts of the drug to produce 
the desired, effect. 

Qustion. Dr. Jones, you were also present when Dr. Kolodny testified last 
Thursday on research conducted by a group of Masters & Johnson scientists 
under his direction, which revealed lowered male hormone levels in marihuana 
smokers? As a scientist who has studied the physiological effects of cannabis, 
do you have any reservations about this finding? 

Answer. Dr. Kolodny's discovery is, in my opinion, of the greatest signifi- 
cance. I found his research methodology impeccable, and, although he was 
properly modest about the finality of his findings, I personally believe that they 
already have the quality of hard scientific evidence. I might point out that four 
years ago, I hypothesized that marihuana users had less than usual male hor- 
mone because they appeared less virile and had less sexual activity. I applied 
for an NIH grant to test the hormone profiles in persons at various stages of 
involvement with cannabis or other drugs, or abstinence from them. The NIH 
study section disapproved the application. Dr. Kolodny now shows unequivocal 
evidence for the suppression of male hormone in men who smoke marihuana. 
Despite this, I anticipate that his findings will be misunderstood by some and 
denied or misrepresented by others. 

Question. Could you tell me why you believe that these findings can be mis- 
understood or misrepresented or denied, when you yourself consider the evi- 
dence to have a hard scientific quality? 

Answer. This wouldn't be the first time that hard scientific evidence has been 
misunderstood or denied. In this specific case, there are a number of reasons 
that make misunderstandings understandable. 

First of all, based on my observations of some 1600 cannabis smokers, I have 
found that feminization in appearance and behavior is only evident in about 
half of male cannabis users. 

Second, in my opinion, signs of suppressed masculinity are most marked in 
those who are physically inactive. I find, obversely, much less behavioral basis 
for suspecting depressed virility in athletes using cannabis, even though they 
may have other signs of functional brain changes. 

Third, Dr. Kolodny has matched sexual impairment with suppression of male 
hormones in cannabis users. In my opinion, it will be equally possible to show 
in marihuana-smoking males, selected as fully masculine types having normal 
sexual inclinations, that testosterone levels are in the normal range. I believe, 
therefore, that we will observe a false dispute of the highly important Kolodny 
findings simply because it will be easy to pre-select subjects not yet sexually 
debilitated by their use of cannabis. But the fact that you can find X number of 
marihuana-smoking males who have not yet been sexually debilitated does not 
disprove the finding that an equal, or substantially larger, percentage have 
suffered sexual impairment in varying degrees. 

I personally confirm the Kolodny observation and caution those who would 
dispute it that we are evaluating a drug with a very wide range of patterns 
of debilitating effects. 

Question. Some of the psychiatrists who testified said that cannabis makes 
people suggestible, that it has an almost hypnotic effect. Does this coincide 
with your own experience? 

Answer. Cannabis does have hypnotic effects. A symptom of this action is 
the "stoned thinking" of the marihuana smoker. What is not fully realized is 
that this condition persists, though at a reduced level, between uses of the drug. 
Stoned thinking is described as use of the non sequitur, thoughts and deductions 
not fully logical but accepted as logical by the cannabis users. One such person 
is pleased to note the non sequiturs in the speech of another ; it is what the 
"pot" user calls good "vibes" and the like. The reinforcement of the foolish 
notions offered by one cannabis user, reflected upon and echoed by his peers who 
share the same vibes, is similar to the impetuous acts of gangs of juvenile 
persons — act now ; don't worry about the consequences. Examples include the 
minor rip-offs (which is to say, stealing) of what is wanted at the moment, 
without restraint, or the breaking of faucets and plumbing in public lavatories 
or the urinating on the floor. Why? The answer is: Why not? 


The cannabis user, as a soldier in Vietnam, would accept heroin-laced ciga- 
rettes ; whereas, the other cigarette-smoking soldiers would not. This can hap- 
pen during a cannabis high, but it is more likely to occur when the cannabis 
user is sober. Tragic episodes of foolish criminal behavior of U.S. soldiers in 
Vietnam should be investigated in light of possible ties to cannabis toxicity. 

Marihuana users are likely to make impetuous sexual decisons. I first thought 
that these were confined to the period of cannabis intoxication, but my inter- 
views produced evidence that this generally occurs when the cannabis user is 
between highs. I have talked to many cannabis users who consented to the 
propositions of homosexuals who had picked them up from the roadside as 
hitch-hikers. These young men are likely to be troubled by these experiences. 
Three such men, after having abstained from cannabis for several months, 
stated that they were then able to see that they had acted under the spell of 
cannabis and they would not have been vulnerable had it not been for the 
suppression of mental powers that they now could relate to cannabis use. 

The hypnotic spell of cannabis facilitates and probably induces appeal of the 
absurd. A century ago, the French scientist, Moreau, recognized this tendency 
in hashish users and called it "alienation," a term appropriately used today to 
describe persons altered by "cannabis. 

Question. Have you read the Third Annual Report to the U.S. Congress from 
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for 1973 on the subject of 
"Marihuana and Health"? 

Answer. Yes, I have read the report and studied the findings. 

Question. Some people associated with the marihuana legalization lobby have 
made the point that the 1973 HEW report on marihuana roughly parallels, 
and therefore appears to bear out, the findings made by the Shafer Commission 
in its own report. Would you consider this an accurate assessment of the HEW 
1973 report on "Marihuana and Health"? Or are there, in your opinion, im- 
portant differences between the two documents? 

Answer. Regrettably, thhe differences are minor and the similarities great. 

Question. Would you be prepared to offer your assessment of the HEW re- 
port, based on your study of it to date? 

Answer. Let me begin by saying I consider it a very biased document. It ig- 
nores much of the scientific evidence against marihuana and distorts the mean- 
ing of some of the studies that it cites. These were faults of the First and Sec- 
ond Annual Reports, also. All three compare very unfavorably with the com- 
prehensive and accurate report on Smoking and Health published by the De- 
partment in 1964 ; these are neither comprehensive nor accurate. 

Though the Report is supposedly directed "to the basic question : What are 
the health implications of marihuana use for the American people?", it is ac- 
tually oriented primarily to matters of social acceptability and the relationships 
of social class to marihuana use. The one-page "Summary", having stated "the 
basic question", does not mention health again. It speaks of "social patterns 
of typical use", "the user's self concept", "the cultural context" of use, and the 
"personal values" of the user, and states that "ascribed characteristics of 
users [may] represent . . . the institutionalized prejudices of those of higher 
social status." There is no mention in the Summary of the scientific evidence 
of organic and functional damage to the brain, or of damage to the hormonal 
system or to chromosomes. A reader of this abbreviated "Summary" would 
conclude that marihuana has no effect on health. The rest of the Summary 
section does treat issues of health but from a biased viewpoint. 

Parts of the Report seem like a sharp lawyer's defense of marihuana. In 
playing down the seriousness of the problem, for example, the Report states 
(p. 5) : "The rate of increase [of cannabis use] in some segments of the pop- 
ulation may have diminished." Many readers would gain the impression that 
use has diminished rather than that the increase in use may be somewhat 
slower than formerly — that the use of marihuana is definitely increasing. 

With regard to the linkage between cannabis and LSD or heroin, the Report 
is incorrect. I disagree with the statement, "Heroin use in this group [college 
students] is extremely uncommon." My studies have found that 20% of the 
cannabis users in the university population that I have studied have tried 
heroin. Very few of them have become addicts and, as I pointed out in answer 
to a previous question, those who become addicted drop out of college ; but I 
believe that the statement in the Report is misleading, since I regard even one 


or two trials as dangerous "heroin use". It is that process by which a fraction 
of marihuana users become heroin addicts. 

With regard to the use of cannabis by physicians and medical students, the 
Report complacently states : "Only seven percent [of physicians] reported cur- 
rent use [of cannabis] and, as expected, younger physicians and those living in 
New York City and San Francisco were more frequent users than those in the 
other areas." This is, in fact, alarming ; for the effects of cannabis in persist- 
ently depressing memory and other mental functions can be expected to dimin- 
ish the quality of performance of physicians. If seven percent of all physicians 
now use cannabis, while the use is "more frequent" among the younger ones, 
then the fraction of young physicians using the drug is large. Some surveys 
suggest that 50% of medical students smoke marihuana. The Report cites a 
study with only 50% response that showed one third of a group of physicians 
had tried marihuana, and one might suspect a higher fraction among the non- 
respondents. The report minimizes the importance of this aspect of the problem. 
The Report dismisses the studies conducted by Professor Soueif for the 
Egyptian Government in two short paragraphs. It fails to recognize the great 
significance of this work. These studies were carefully controlled ; they focused 
on the persistent effects of cannabis and compared a wide range of social and 
achievement levels ; they were conducted when the persons in the study were 
not acutely affected by cannabis ; and they found a striking result : the higher 
the individual's original mental test scores, the more they were depressed by 
cannabis use. None of this is mentioned in the body of the Report. There seems 
to be an indirect reference to Soueif's study in the "Introduction," but only 
for the purpose of belittling its importance : "There is significant new evidence 
regarding the implications of long-term cannabis use. However, much of it is 
based on overseas populations quite different from an American user popula- 
tion both in their patterns of drug use and in the demands their society makes 
upon them. Moreover, ours is a society that makes simultaneous use of many 
drugs. They are used recreationally, as self medication and by prescription." 
It would have been wise to point out that America probably demands higher 
average levels of mental performance than does the Egyptian society and 
hence that the damaging effects of cannabis use in American life must be 
greater. And the Report should not have lightly accepted the propagandists' 
cliche, "recreational use of drugs," and mentioned it so casually as a socially 
accepted practice. It tends to make drug use seem as "American" as going to a 
baseball game or eating apple pie. 

Although a 4-page summary of the Soueif study is finally presented in the 
section on "Marihuana Use in Other Countries," I find it does not convey the 
sense of the paper or its significance. The text is merely full of technical details 
of methodology. It does not even mention Soueif's finding that the probability 
of hashish users becoming opium users was a function of the duration of their 
exposure to hashish. 

The section on "Future Research Directions" is strong on sociological studies 
but weak on the biomedical side. It fails to emphasize the importance of inves- 
tigating the extent of persistent effects of marihuana on mental function and 
possible brain damage. The decreased educability of chronic marijuana users 
has been observed, but further research into its causes and cure is essential. 
The Report seems to regard the genetic and embryonic effects of marihuana as 
a closed book, since no recommendation for future research on that aspect is 
offered. I believe there is enough evidence to call for a more extensive investi- 
gation of that effect. 

Like the Shafer report, HEW's 1973 report on "Marihuana and Health" con- 
tains some impressive cautionary material in the larger text — which is some- 
how completely ignored in the summary of findings. For example, the HEW 
report, under metabolic effects, makes this statement: 

"By using whole-body autoradiography and measurement of radiolabeled 
drugs in isolated tissues, it has been unequivocally shown that THC penetrates 
the placental barrier and accumulates in the fetus. ... At high doses, the fetal 
levels become high enough, however, to cause embryonic and fetal deaths." 

This sounds pretty impressive — however, none of this is reflected in either 
the two-page introduction or the six-page summary, which is what most people 
read and credit. 

In other cases, the report glosses over recent research conducted by respon- 
sible scientists in the United States and abroad — or seeks to refute this re- 


search by repeated references to the utterly worthless study conducted, under 
an NIMH grant, by a few Jamaican scientists of limited credentials. 

While the report does make a brief reference to the research conducted by 
Dr. Stenchever and his colleagues at the University of Utah, which established 
that marihuana smokers, even at the rate of one cigarette a week, displayed 
three times as many chromosome abnormalities as non-smokers, it dismisses 
this extremely well-controlled study with the following words : 

"There is no convincing evidence that chromosomal abnormalities arise from 
marihuana use. The Jamaican study of chronic users as well as other studies 
of the effects of THC on chromosomes in human lymphocytes (a type of white 
blood cell) indicate no changes related to cannabis use." 

The report also completely ignored the most impressive neurophysiological 
studies yet conducted on the human brain and the brains of monkeys which 
produced electroencephalographic recordings demonstrating massive abnormal- 
ities in the brains of cannabis smokers, and persisting abnormalities after rel- 
atively brief periods of chronic use. This testimony was presented to your 
Subcommittee last Thursday by Dr. Robert Heath, Chairman of the Depart- 
ment of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane University. Again, the worthless 
Jamaican study is invoked as the supreme authority. This is what the report 
says : 

"Systematic study of brain electrical activity (EEG records) in matched 
user-nonuser populations in both Jamaica and Greece have not disclosed ab- 
normalities associated with cannabis use." 

Perhaps not very surprisingly, the report fails to conclude that we are con- 
fronted with a national cannabis epidemic of a gravity that calls for an all-out 
effort of public education by the various federal, state and local agencies con- 
cerned with the problem of drug abuse. Without such a campaign, needless to 
say, it's going to be impossible to turn the situation around. 

Despite the fact that it contains much solid scientific information, therefore, 
I would have to state, bluntly, that in my opinion those who compiled the re- 
port for the Secretary of HEW have been guilty not only of professional in- 
competence but of a major disservice to the people of the United States. 

Question. You have spoken in a highly critical — I might say bitterly criti- 
cal — manner about the Jamaican study which was quoted by the HEW report. 
Do you really think this study has had any serious impact on public under- 
standing in this country of the dangers of cannabis use? 

Answer. Let me first quote from an official paper on this research : 

"Twenty-seven cultures from 12 users and 15 controls failed to produce ade- 
quate results for analysis. Either there was complete failure of mitotic activ- 
ity or the quality of the cells was inadequate for examination. Part of this 
high failure rate was clue to a bad batch of calf serum used in our culture 
medium. It is not known without repeating the examinations whether this was 
the only factor." 

The above difficulties, acknowledged by the Jamaican study, invalidates the 
observations. For one thing, 12 users and 15 controls amounts to a large frac- 
tion of the study ; for another, the admitted difficulty suggests that cell cultures 
in the defective medium appearing to have some degree of mitotic activity or 
"reasonably normal" cell appearance were accepted as part of the study. This 
kind of research difficulty would not be acceptable by experts in the field of 
chromosome studies ; indeed, they would not have conducted any such study 
without being certain of the culture media and all other aspects of the test 
conditions determining the validity and the reproducibility of the results. 

I believe tbat the Jamacian study — precisely because it was funded by NIMH 
and has now been given the apparent blessing of HEW — has already had a 
tremendous negative impact in the United States. It is being quoted over and 
over again by all those who are lobbying for the legalizatoin of marihuana. This 
would be bad enough. But the damage was compounded by an article in the 
popular medical weekly, Medical Tribune, in October of last year. I have brought 
a copy of it here with me. 

The heading of the article reads, "Study of Chronic Use of Marihuana Dem- 
onstrates No Chromosome Breaks, Brain Damage, or Untoward Effects." Then 
the article says, I quote : 

"A double-blind clinical study of the effects of marihuana in a sample of a 
population long habituated to its use has yielded no evidence of significant 


physiologic or psychoneurotic differences between smokers and a control 
group of nonsmokers. . . . 

"The results of this investigation appear to lay at rest many common beliefs 
about the deleterious effects of marihuana — beliefs based on laboratory obser- 
vations (or anecdotes) of acute effects in haphazardly collected groups of 
study subjects, without regard for idiosyncratic physiologic differences or be- 
havioral or sociologic background. . . . 

"Abnormalities found in chromosome studies of peripheral blood cultures 
were slightly more frequent in the nonsmoker controls." 

The article in Medical Tribune, not very surprisingly, was widely picked up 
around the country. An article in the Detroit Free Press, for example, carried 
a five-column head : "Study Finds Marihuana Not Harmful." Since I have al- 
ready quoted from this article, I shall not repeat myself — apart from empha- 
sizing that the article was not speaking of the occasional use of marihuana but 
of the chronic use of marihuana having no apparent harmful effects. 

For these reasons, I believe that the Jamaican study has done tremendous 
damage to the cause of public education, and that the emphasis placed on this 
document by the recent HEW report has given major support to the pro- 
marihuana lobby in this country. 

Question. Dr. Jones, how is your scientific research on drug abuse supported? 
Answer. At present, not at all. When I first became involved, in 1965, I con- 
sidered this research a side line. I read and analyzed the literature on the 
subject and began, in my spare time, to interview and study the characteristics 
and experiences of persons taking the psychoactive drugs. In 1967, I received 
a grant from the Carthage Foundation for a special study of Controversy in 
Science, and they allowed me to use a portion of it for my study of drug- 
affected persons. From the beginning, my research was directed toward deter- 
mining long-term consequences of drug abuse and methods applicable to edu- 
cation in drug abuse prevention and in rehabilitation of drug-dependent per- 
sons. Almost immediately, I found significant leads in these areas, warranting 
expansion of my work into supportive laboratory research and clinical trials. 
Question. Then you did obtain funding to enlarge your studies? 
Answer. No, I did not. I have tried repeatedly to get such funds, both by 
formal application and informally, but I was always turned down. 

Question. Can you tell us more fully about this situation and whether you 
have grant applications that are now pending? 

Answer. Before answering your question, allow me to state that my appear- 
ance here as a witness has nothing to do with my disappointment in seeking 
Federal support and the handicap it has been to my work. I have no grant 
applications pending at this time and I have no plan to submit an application, 
as I will explain. 

The funds from the Carthage Foundation were limited. From the beginning 
until they expired last year, we had agreed that I should apply for Federal 
funds, since very large sums were known to be available for drug abuse re- 
search and my studies were so promising of early practical results. When I did 
apply, however, I found the reviewers of my proposal were very antagonistic, 
and it was no surprise to me that my application was rejected. I know that my 
vocal and long-standing opposition to the "soft line" on marijuana and to the 
methadone program for heroin addicts has not helped to make me popular in 
some circles. 

Question. Dr. Jones, from your continuing research, have you been able to 
make an estimate of the extent of cannabis use in the United States, and the 
trend? Could you offer an opinion about the information on cannabis seizures 
supplied by Mr. Andrew C. Tartagiino of the Drug Enforcement Administration? 
Answer. Most of the data I have been able to collect indicate that the use of 
cannabis is increasing at an exponential rate — like compound interest — and 
that the outlook for the immediate future is further increase in cannabis use. 
In my opinion, it will continue to increase until the public understanding of the 
hazards involved is sufficient to discourage the use of marihuana. 

Each year of the past decade, some authorities have stated that the use of 
drugs is declining ; but overall, the use of both marihuana and hashish has been 
steadily on the increase. In the first analysis I made of this trend, in 1968, I 
used as the quantitative measure both the number of California juvenile drug 
offense arrests and the quantities of drugs seized. I believe the data supplied 
by Mr. Tartagiino are consistent with the present trend of increase in numbers 


of cannabis users and increase in quantity of cannabis consumed by each in- 
dividual — both in dosage per use and frequency of dosage. 

The regularity of the tendency for the quantities of cannabis to increase 
with passage of time, from 1969 to 1974, is impressive. This is what would be 
expected in a country as large as ours, with many agents working on illicit 
drugs and with the separate seizures being relatively small in comparison with 
the aggregate totals for the year. I must emphasize the seriousness of the fact 
that all data I have examined on the frequency of use of cannabis by grade- 
school and college students indicate a steady increase in percentage using the 
drug, both by age and by grade. The Tartaglino data are in accord with these 
observations and should alert us to the increasing use of cannabis. 

1 have made a continuing survey of marihuana use among UC students since 
1968. On the basis of my own data, I have made a graphic analysis of the trend 
of the Tartaglino data, as shown in the graphs which I am submitting for the 
record at this point. 



Frequency of use per week 

mg THC, estimated 
smoked per 100 users 

percent smoked absorbed per week per year 

Assumed dose 



smoked per 

year per 


7 or more 4 40 20 1,200 62,400 

6 to 7 6 30 15 1,117 60,840 

4 to 6 .. .... 20 26 13 2,600 135,200 

2 to 4 54 20 10 3,230 166,400 

1 to 2* 10 16 8 240 12,480 

Less than 1 6 10 5 30 1,560 

Total U38.880 

10, 140 

1 THC equals 4.39 g smoked per year per male cannabis user. 

1 Seizures are estimated to be between 8 to 12 percent of the contraband. A conservative figure, therefore, estimating 
the total cannabis smuggled is to multiply Federal seizures by a factor of 8 (assumes 12 percent seizure). 

> This is based on my interview data; approximately half of cannabis using persons grow their own or get their supply 
from someone who grows it. 

Note: Estimated supplies of cannabis, United States 1973: Marijuana seized by Federal agents, 782,033 lb at 1.5 percen 
THC equals 11,730 lb THC times 8 ' equals 93,840 lb; estimating domestic production ' equals illegal importation of 93 840 
lb; hashish seized by Federal agents, 52,333 lb at 10 percent THC equals 5,233 lb THC times 8 equals 41,864 lb; total THC 
consumed in 1973 equals 229,544 lb; or total THC consumed in 1973 equals 104,300 kg. 

Total users in United States if pattern of use is like Berkeley, the average male user consumes 4.39 g THC per yea r. 
The average female user consumes 3.6 g THC per year. 

Ratio, male to female users is 2 to 1; average user, male plus female, estimated to consume 4.13 g/yr. 
Therefore 104,300,000 g THC available in United States in 1973 divided by 4.13 g THC consumed per average user is 
25,000,000 users. Of these, 10 percent or 2,500,000 use cannabis more than 6 times per week. 




6 months or longer. 

1 year or longer 

2 years or longer... 

3 years or longer... 

42 4 years or longer. 

57 5 years or longer. 

54 6 years or longer. 

44 7 years or longer. 

33 8 years or longer. 

Note: Estimated year of onset of marihuana epidemic in these users— January 1966; average age then 14 years 9th 
grade. This estimate is based on a larger compilation of the data. 
























400 - 

69 70 71 72 73 74 


69 70 71 72 


73 74 

Fig. 1 

Fig. 1. — Pounds of cannabis (marihuana, A; hashish, B) removed from the 
illicit market of the United States by Federal agents. The information is from 
the statement before the subcommittee by Andrew C. Tartaglino. Note the ex- 
ponential increase from 1969 to 1974. 



_ Doubling time - 
-1.54 yr = 46%/yr 


Marijuana THC 
Hashish THC 

Millions of plants 
seized in California 

69 70 71 72 73 74 


: ig. 2 

Fig. 2. — Kilograms of THC in the cannabis seizures. Marihuana is assumed to 
contain 1.5% THC and hashish, 10% THC. The quantity of THC is on a loga- 
rithmic scale, and a line matching the most recent increase in THC is drawn for 
reference. Its slope indicates a doubling time of 1.5 years, or a rate of increase 
of 46% per year. 


Fig. 3 

I i^— — r-H 1 — 


£ 40 



Q- 60 


— 1 

J Frequency of cannabis use 


- / UC 


le students, 1973 " 

- / 18 


yrs - 


x\ I I 

I I I I I I 

2 4 6 8 10 

No. of uses per week 


Fig. 3. — The frequency of cannabis use in 200 marihuana-smoking under- 
graduates, 1973. 



















10,000 - 


100 - 


1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 

* Drugs requiring prescription but not including narcotics. 

Fig. 4 

Fig. 4.— Analysis of drug abuse trend (Jones, H.B., 1968). Based on Califor- 
nia juvenile arrests for drug offenses. 


List of Research Papers on Drugs Offered for the Record by Professor Hardin 

1. "The Deception of Drugs" by Hardin B. Jones, Ph. D., Clinical Toxicology, 
4(1), pp. 129-36, March, 1971. 

2. "A Report on Drug Abuse in the Armed Forces in Vietnam" by Hardin B. 
Jones, Ph. D., Medical Service Digest, August, 1972. 

3. "A Study of Drug Abuse and Its Prevention for the Armed Forces of the 
United States" by Hardin B. Jones, Ph. D., and Helen C. Jones. (A report on a 
worldwide study of drug abuse in the U.S. Armed Forces, conducted under con- 
tract for the Department of Defense. ) 

4. "The Effects of Sensual Drugs on Behavior : Clues to the Function of the 
Brain" by Hardin B. Jones. (Chapter 8 of PSYCHOBIOLOGY, Newton and 
Riesen, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974.) 

Mr. Martin. Our next witness is Mr. Keith Cowan from Canada. 

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Cowan, it is good to have you with us. 
Will you identify yourself for the record and state your qualifica- 
tions ? 


Mr. Cowan. Yes, sir; I am an adviser to the government of the 
Canadian province of Prince Edward Island, director of an institute 
associated with the University of Prince Edward Island, and a mem- 
ber of the public drug education committee of the department of 
education. My presentation today is made as an individual. 

My special interest lies in the field of communications which is 
applied in my work to the problems of drug education and labor 

My background includes a honor's premedical science degree from 
McGill University in 1940, and several additional years of night and 
day university work in the humanities, labor relations and commu- 

Twenty-five years of work has been spent in industry, the informa- 
tion media and government, including 8 years with the Economic 
Council of Canada and the national productivity council, during 
which time I prepared a 2-year study on the "Role of Communica- 
tions and Behavioral Knowledge" for our National Commission on 
Labor Relations. 

Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Cowan will have to ab- 
breviate his statement considerably in order to get through in the time 
remaining to us. May I suggest that the entire text of his statement 
be incorporated into the record as though read. 

Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done. Mr. 
Cowan, your entire statement will appear in the record as you have it 

Mr. Cowan. Thank you. 

Senator Thurmond. And then counsel will propound questions to 
you to bring out certain points, and anything that you feel in addi- 
tion, if you could do it. 

When I have to leave to vote I will ask counsel just to continue the 
hearing in my absence. 

Mr. Cowan. General interest in drug abuse issues began with our 
children's university years both in the United States and Canada in 
the 1960's when drugs on the campus became a public issue and a 
natural concern of parents. 


A special interest in cannabis started 4 years ago when my cabinet 
minister, the late Hon. Elmer Blanchard, our Province's Minister of 
both Labor and Justice, asked if I could help him prepare a statement 
to be presented to our National Commission on the Non-Medical Use 
of Drugs, which is popularly known as the Le Dain Commission. The 
Ottawa government had invited each provincial government to give 
its views at the open hearings of the traveling commission. Prince 
Edward Island was the only province which responded. 

What began as a request for a "little" time has instead become a 
continuous part of my work and concern to this day, touching per- 
sons and organizations in several countries. My various responsibil- 
ities over several years have permitted numerous visits to the United 
States which made direct personal contacts possible with administra- 
tors, deans and students at many American universities and research 
centers investigating cannabis problems. This added greatly to phone 
and mail exchanges and information from literature, providing data 
for my presentation today on "Cannabis and the Communications 

When the poet suggested that "ignorance is bliss" he could not have 
been aware of today's vast and, I believe, dangerous communications 
gap on the subject of the harmful effects of marihuana and hashish. 

Evidence is mounting in Canada and the United States that huge 
numbers of youth at increasingly lower age levels in schools and 
neighborhoods, many young professionals and important press and 
other media accept cannabis as a basically harmless recreational drug 
which should be as available as alcohol or tobacco. The evidence of 
these hearings warns us to the contrary. 

It is clear from my work that this "benign" image is one of the 
major causes of the drug's wide acceptance and use. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, your subcommittee of the U.S. Senate deserves high com- 
mendation from within and without the United States for bringing 
together thoroughly qualified medical researchers from around the 
world to testify in public hearings in order that carefully prepared 
evidence might help to close such a serious gap in public knowledge. 

You have heard from recognized authorities at these hearings of 
specific and serious problems which arise from the steady use of 
marihuana and hashish, such as long-term retention and accumula- 
tion of cell-interfering chemicals in the fat cells of the brain and 
reproductive organs, significant chromosome breakage and DNA 
damage, serious immunity and hormone interference, traffic dangers, 
reduction in the abilities of the higher levels of the mind such as 
memory, intellectual capacity, coordination, potential irreversible 
brain damage and so on. Some of the evidence has only become known 
in the last 2 years, but strong warnings have been available for many 
years as clinicians had observed harmful effects without knowing the 
how or why. 

In spite of such evidence, pressures are being exerted on Western 
World governments to take irretrievable steps towards the legaliza- 
tion of cannabis products, perhaps more fiercely in the United States 
than anywhere else. While the governments of Great Britain, France, 
and Canada have made firm decisions to hold the line on any spread 
of the drug through heavy legal penalties for trafficking and con- 


tinued but reduced penalties for possession, public evidence of pres- 
sures on American State, civic, and Federal governments has given 
Canadians concerned with the problem, considerable anxiety due to 
the lengthy common and friendly frontiers. Drug traffickers recog- 
nize no custom barriers. 

What gives these political pressures credence, is the general com- 
munications gap particularly among the youth. 

A few illustrations of this gap may suffice. 

The most recent have come to my attention since arriving in Wash- 
ington to attend these hearings. Two young men visiting from De- 
troit, Mich., dropped in on the first hearing. Afterward, one of 
them, a teaching assistant, wanted more information since he seriously 
questioned the evidence of harmful effects which he had heard for the 
first time. He announced that he enthusiastically supported the drive 
to "decriminalize" marihuana. He said that he had read the National 
Commission report, the books of Dr. Grinspoon of Harvard and knew 
of the work of the organization called NORML — National Organiza- 
tion for the Reform of Marihuana Laws. 

"What evidence have you read of the harmful effects of the drug?" 
I asked. "Well," he said with a puzzled look, "I haven't read of any 
serious problems." The other youth did recall having seen one item 
about hormone damage in a recent Detroit newspaper. 

The almost closed mind of the first youth, a teacher who had done 
some reading and research, and his apparent missionary enthusiasm 
to liberalize the use of cannabis as a harmless drug is a common 

In the last few days I also met a well-educated, highly intelligent 
Washington couple from the business community, with children in the 
young teenage bracket. When I told them of the evidence presented 
to this hearing, they were greatly incensed because they had not heard 
of it before. "We have been trying to find out something authentic 
about this drug without success," said the mother. She knew that the 
drug was being used in the neighborhood and wanted to discuss the 
question intelligently with her children. 

A local university dean told me last week that, with virtually no 
evidence to place against his children's reading and the accepted belief 
among their friends, he had very great difficulty making a case to 
discourage them from using it. 

A responsible Washington public official informed me that he finds 
the young college person coming onto his staff generally favorable 
to the open use of marihuana and disdainful of any harmful effects. 

A relative of mine from the State of Washington reports that her 
son's high school teacher told the clas during a drug education pro- 
gram that marihuana was the only drug for which she had no ade- 
quate information. 

A quiz conducted in a Texas high school showed that out of a class 
of 25, only two students believed that any harm could come from us- 
ing marihuana, and neither of the two could describe any specific 

Last year, a University of Michigan team conducted a high school, 
classroom drug education program, in which the pro's and con's of 
marihuana, tobacco, alcohol and one or two other drugs were listed 


on the board, side by side — without any judgment or evaluation. It 
was found, however, that the use of marihuana increased significantly 
following these presentations. I phoned the professor in charge, and 
asked if certain of the information which has been presented in this 
hearing and was then available had been listed among the harmful 
effects of marihuana. "No," was the reply. From the manner of pre- 
sentation, in my analysis students could see no basic difference be- 
tween tobacco, marihuana and alcohol. And since they themselves 
had tried or were using alcohol and tobacco, along with most of their 
parents, it seemed reasonable to use pot as well. 

Discussions with a cross-section of people from many parts of 
Canada and the United States over the past 3 years, including meet- 
ings with groups of students, confirm the impression that a belief in 
the essential harmlessness of marihuana is a widespread viewpoint, 
especially at school and university levels. 

Last month, I sat in a gathering of Canadian high school students 
from a fairly large area. They were frank about the growing use of 
cannabis in 'lower grades and the fact that general opinion in the 
schools favored the legalization of marihuana because it was harm- 

Knowledge about this communications sickness was sharpened when 
I recently met with educational officers from Canadian drug addiction 
organizations. When I presented a summary of the evidence you have 
been hearing, the majority of those present were either startled that 
such information existed or attacked the information as inaccurate, 
as yet unproven, or highly biased. A representative of Canada's 
largest drug addiction organization reported categorically that his 
group were "less concerned" about marihuana and its effects than they 
had been 5 years ago. The second largest organization suggested that 
they had never been given any evidence to be concerned about by the 
universities upon whom they depended for information. 

Even more disturbing is the report from Canada's Toronto Globe 
and Mail of December 21, 1973, on a new study conducted by the 
Ontario Addiction Research Foundation which shows that high 
school teachers tend to be more favorable to the legalization of mari- 
huana than students. The more the person knows about the drug, 
according to this research, the more permissive he or she becomes 
and, of course, teachers had read more than their students. Assum- 
ing some accuracy in this study, the question we must ask — as I did 
of the youth from Detroit— is, "What has been read by the teachers 
of this continent and all the others to produce such a favorable atti- 
tude to legalization?" 

During the last 3 years, the national press of Canada and, as sev- 
eral witnesses have reported, the U.S. press as well, has almost totally 
emphasized the harmlessness of cannabis. Some encouraging changes 
have begun, however, in the past 6 months, I am pleased to report. 

To illustrate the problem, last September 25, Canada's largest 
newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail, ran a lead editorial on the 
excuse of the announcement by a Toronto dentist who claimed that 
regular marihuana smoking seems to keep teeth clean — so might ni- 
tric acid. The editorial totally exonerated the drug from causing any 
medical problems. The real and only harm came to youth because of 

33-371 O - 74 - 18 


breaking the law. And in any case, the editors suggest, doctors, law- 
yers, university professors, et al., are now using the drug. By infer- 
ence, "let's get on with it," and smoke up. 

One month earlier, the same paper carried a full-page review of 
the U.S. Consumers Union volume "Licit and Illicit Drugs" accom- 
panied by color drawings and a headline entitled, "Are Laws More 
Damaging Than Drugs?" emphasizing, with faint criticism, the 
book's theme and the policy position of the Consumers Union, namely, 
that penalizing laws for all drugs, including heroin, rather than the 
drugs themselves, had caused the most damage to society and indi- 
viduals. To the layman, says the paper, this book is "most convincing" 
and from a "long respected source," adding that the Consumers 
Union expects that the book "will have a great impact on public 

Again, on February 12, 1974, a three column story on cannabis 
research in Ottawa Laboratories plays up a "research student's" 
comments — made while rolling a joint for himself — that he had be- 
come convinced marihuana was "less harmful than alcohol or ciga- 
rettes" and should be legalized. More cautionary comments from the 
professional researchers themselves were buried in following para- 

A similar pattern is evident in the American press. The New York 
Times, which has an important Canadian readership, used to give 
good space to news critical about marihuana. This has almost stopped 
dead for the past few years. Not one word on these hearings, for 
instance. While the Washington Star-News carried an excellent story 
critical of cannabis following the opening day of these hearings, 
nothing appeared in the Washington Post until 2 days afterward 
when a four column, well-displayed story written by Tom Braden 
appeared on the editorial page of May 11. Its title, "Slow Progress 
on the Marihuana Front" was set off by a sizable picture of police 
officers in a marihuana patch. In telling of changes in States laws to 
reduce penalties for marihuana use, the article claimed that "no re- 
spected bod}^ of opinion any longer holds that moderate consumption 
is any more dangerous to the human body than consumption of to- 
bacco or alcohol" — a fallacy that is contradicted by the evidence pre- 
sented at these hearings. 

Nothing appeared about the evidence from the hearings during the 
next few days in the Post, even though one of its writers had tried 
to contact one of the witnesses by long distance phone before he came 
to Washington. The Post of May 17, which came immediately after 
the revelation before this committee of the high probability of brain 
damage and cancer resulting from pot use, not only carried no story, 
but carried six other well-displayed items on health and drugs, cov- 
ering about 140 column inches. 

The Washington Post has a great impact outside your country 
because it is quoted extensively in other papers. Intelligent readers 
in other countries rely heavily on quotes from the Post for informa- 
tion about the United States. The Post also commands special interest 
because of its reputation as a paper which is continually attacking 
coverups, or what it believes to be coverups. The Post has the right, 
of course, to publish Mr. Braden's profoundly mistaken column on 


marihuana — even though columns like this encourage young people 
to experiment with pot and then go on to become regular users. But 
was the Post not guilty of the kind of coverup it denounces so reg- 
ularly when it decided — and it could only have been a deliberate de- 
cision — not to report on these hearings? Their decision to ignore the 
hearings was all the more difficult to understand because of the inter- 
national eminence of the scientists who testified, because of the news- 
worthiness and public importance of the research on which they re- 
ported, and because of widespread public and family concern over 
the issue. 

Hopefully, the publishers and editors of the Post will reconsider 
their attitude, and will take the time to examine the scientific findings 
on cannabis presented to the subcommitee and then make this infor- 
mation available to their readers. This is something that their read- 
ers have the right to know. 

The sad truth is that highly important and cautionary evidence 
has been available for years in the literature and in the experience 
of prominent medical men who have treated cannabis habitues. But 
it has not reached our youth and the public in any effective way as 
yet. Neither the United States nor the Canadian national commis- 
sions have succeeded in this vital educational job. In the United 
States, the report of the National Commission on Marihuana has 
been interpreted as providing a green light to the eventual legaliza- 
tion of the drug. In Canada, the Le Dain Commission's final cannabis 
report contains important cautionary material, but, perhaps due to 
the Commission's split decision, it has not deterred large numbers of 
Canadians from believing otherwise. 

On a recent trip to England I searched bookstores associated with 
the University of London and the University of Oxford. Excepting 
one book, the only books openly available gave cannabis a basically 
clean bill of health. One document stated succinctly that science had 
not established that marihuana was as harmful as tobacco. Another 
book, prominently displayed at London hotels and tourist bookstalls 
for the more adventurous youth who were seeking "underground 
London," gave a full chapter to disproving any harmful effects and 
suggested that a secret British commission had cleared the drug for 
legal use, but the Government was afraid to make it public for polit- 
ical reasons. I learned, officially, that such is not the case. 

Visits to five other universities on the U.S. eastern seaboard brought 
the communication gap home even more seriously. In one major 
university, I thoroughly investigated the literature in the bookstores, 
and every single drug study was favorable to cannabis. The dean of 
students told me that while they were observing ill effects on students 
using the drug in increasing numbers, they had no confirmation in the 
general literature to support their observation, and were therefore 
silent. Comments from several knowledgeable observers of campus 
life suggest that students on this continent will find almost all readily 
available books lacking in suitable cautionary material at their cam- 
pus book shops. 

Time has permitted a visit to only one Washington bookstore. A 
careful look at all books on display for sale on drug problems re- 
vealed that only one book detailing effects of popular illicit drugs 


was available — a Ford Foundation sponsored study dated 1972 in 
which a Dr. A. T. Weil categorically states that cannabis was the 
only common drug which has no significant physical or mental harm- 
ful effects. Technical books have also been at fault. 

In the summer of 1973 a scholarly article appeared in the U.S. 
"Journal of Drug Issues," written by three up-and-coming minds in 
the legal profession, all holding significant posts, one a Canadian. It 
proposed that cannabis be removed from international restrictive 
legal controls. Why? Because, and I quote, "The assumption that 
cannabis has significant inimical effects on the user and the society 
in which he lives was the reason why cannabis was subjected to the 
controls of the United Nations 1966 Single Convention. Inasmuch as 
this assumption has been contraverted by a number of comprehensive 
empirical studies, and because no evidence has offered to substantiate 
such assumptions, it appears the raison d'etre for subjecting cannabis 
to international controls is lacking." 

The findings of four major national commissions were used as 
prime supporting evidence — the British, United States, Canadian, 
and Dutch Commission. 

The study seriously erred in failing to mention the cautionary 
warnings from the United Kingdom, United States, and Canadian 
Commisison reports. It has been parlayed around government justice 
departments for serious study I am informed. 

Last week, the executive committee of the Illinois Bar Association 
voted to recommend the removal of all penalties for possession and 
use of marihuana. On inquiry, Malcolm S. Kamin, chairman of their 
Individual Rights Committee reported that the organization NORML 
had encouraged this move by informing his committee both in person 
and by literature that marihuana was no more and probably less 
harmful than tobacco or alcohol and on this evidence, with none other 
available, the decision was made. 

Mr. Martin. Could you define NORML for the subcommittee? 

Mr. Cowan. Yes, it's the National Organization — I get confused 
with all these various long names 

Mr. Martin. National Organization for the Removal of Marihuana 

Mr. Cowan. It's the Repeal of Marihuana Laws ; it's the word "re- 
peal" that I was trying to recall. I am so used to using the short form. 

Mr. Kamin said it was a personal presentation and the evidence 
which they provided which gave the Illinois Bar Association the 
position which they accepted, that this was a basically benign drug, 
probably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, in the words, "In the 
lack of evidence to the contrary" they of course accepted that posi- 
tion. He has asked me for material. I followed it up because it seemed 
to fit in with this material. 

(Regarding the United Kingdom, United States, and Canadian 
Commissions, all were agreed in cautioning against the nonmedical 
use of the drug.) 

A slick paper medical handout supplied free of charge through the 
mails to American doctors called "Medical Economics," carried a 
19-page special feature entitled "Learning to Live with Drug Abuse" 
on May 28, 1973. It suggests the Shafer Commission has said what 


everybody has known for years — namely, and I quote, "for most 
people, based on what we know, marihuana is a relatively safe drug." 
In a headline it also says "Decriminalization laws are giving young 
people assurance that marihuana isn't so bad after all." Decriminali- 
zation — with eventual controlled legalization like alcohol — comes 
through as the recommended way of the future. No mention is made 
of any of the serious effects being considered here. 

The promotion and massive distribution of books favorable to mar- 
ihuana by the organization NORML and other similar groups, as 
well as the Consumers Union, adds to the availability of pot permis- 
sive literature everywhere. 

Evidence has also been given previously before the commission on 
the disproportionate amount of time TV has given to promarihuana 

A brief look at the Theory of Communications may help to under- 
stand the communications gap phenomenon. 

Communications Theory suggests that each person in the process 
of either sending or receiving messages from or to another person 
tends to either block or alter these messages through a variety of 
filters or altering devices built into the human system. Years ago, 
Walter Lippman. brilliant American journalist and philosopher, de- 
scribed the No. 1 human filtering device in these words : "The images 
in our head and the reality in the world around us." 

The "image' of cannabis which we hold in our heads becomes criti- 
cal, for we will normally view facts about cannabis according to that 
image. It is easy to visualize how our Detroit teacher had read cer- 
tain books, reinforced by newspaper stories, the comments of friends 
and peers and because of the slowness of the drug to cause visible 
harm found it easy to develop a benign image of Cannabis — which 
tended to filter out negative information about cannabis. 

Until the late 1950's. marihuana was little used in North America, 
feared as a drug of immediate and terrible consequences to human 
health and sanity and was placed under the heaviest penalties of our 
narcotics laws. The Dr. Tim Leary's. some early research, and other 
writings destroyed the validity of the "terror" image. "Scare tactics" 
were condemned. The removal of fear was unquestionably a prime 
cause of the drug's immense immediate spread. We had to ask our- 
selves in our pre-Le Dain analysis on Prince Edward Island, how- 
ever, "did it follow that a proper removal of the terror image neces- 
sarily permitted the substitution of a benign image implying full le- 
galization and open public availability?" 

The filter of Values and Concepts is also important : 

Four years ago our Minister of Justice and our Cabinet had to face 
the values to be used in making a decision about cannabis before the 
presentation to the Le Dain Commision. 

It was ascertained from reliable medical authorities that clinical 
observations over a long period of time had shown up, certain possi- 
bly, serious harmful aspects of cannabis use which modern research 
had not yet verified. From his value system, the Minister reasoned, 
the role of a government is to take responsibility for the overall social 
health and well-being of the community — concerns regarding pollu- 
tion and thalidomide, are examples. Looking back over the contro- 


versy, it is pleasant to read the final Le Dain "cannabis" statement 3 
vears later, in which four of the Commissioners agreed on the con- 
cept that "harm is the most useful criterion for social policy" (p. 
265), either to self or to society. 

These clinical observations would have to be taken seriously until 
such time as medical research had clarified their seriousness. Clinical 
observation, we were instructed by our medical advisers, is an im- 
portant tool of medicine. 

Therefore, said the Minister in his presentation, "We strongly 
condemn any move by this Commission to recommend, or any move 
by the Federal Ministers of Health or Justice, to legalize or liberalize 
the use of marihuana at this time, as a betrayal of the trust which 
the people of Canada have placed in you, and a betrayal of the so- 
cial, medical principles under which other drugs are abruptly re- 
moved from the market, when only preliminary research has indi- 
cated possible human danger" . . . "far more research is needed before 
any liberalization could possibly be considered," he added. In short, 
when warning flags are up, "A drug must be considered guilty until 
proven innocent," the title of our second brief to the Le Dain Com- 
mission given by the suceeding Justice Minister of P.E.I., the Hon- 
orable Gordon Bennett. 

Concepts and values also played a role in the legal problem. Society 
is always endeavoring to solve the equation between total personal 
freedom and the need for order. I can only be free to the point where 
what I do unduly interferes with another person's freedom and vice 
versa. We legislate both protection against undue interference from 
each other and human rights together. 

Therefore, the Minister, backed by the Cabinet, not only called for 
continued restrictions but also for a reduction of penalties for mere 
possession — no jail sentences for first and possibly second youthful 
offenders, with the removal of a criminal record after 2 years of good 
behavior. In operating the law, he added, youth should nevertheless 
come to understand that this is a "no-nonsense matter." 

It was a plea for time to establish the validity of the warning 
signs. We have some evidence that P.E.I.'s plea was heeded in high 
places, even if only dimly in the Commission's Interim Report. 

All of the above, of course, places a high value on the worth of the 

The second filter is emotion. If I dislike or fear someone or some- 
thing I tend to pass along selected information which supports my 
fear. And worse, I filter out facts which don't support my dislikes. 
The opposite follows. A young adult who has developed a desire for 
the pleasure of the marihuana or hashish high, whether it be physical 
or psychological, will filter out information which threatens his 
pleasure and probably let it influence his judgment, say, if he is in 
the news media. England's Dr. Fairbairn told me of a recent visit to 
Greece, where he observed incapacitated "hashaholics" who became 
quite violent if any move was made or threatened to cut off their 
supply of hashish. 

The third filter of importance is that of objectives or goals. If you 
have committed yourself to an evening out with the boys, or a day 
off on the golf course, you will find how readily you produce sup- 
porting evidence and reject facts threatening your goal. 


Considerable numbers of determined individuals, some profession- 
als, and a few well-organized, seemingly well-financed groups, es- 
pecially in the United States, are bent on an all-out campaign to 
achieve the goal of legalizing cannabis, either through full-scale, 
alcohol-type distribution systems or by a process of de facto legaliza- 
tion by removal of all le<zal penalties for use and minor distribution. 
Journalist Edward M. Brecher appears to reveal the true goal or 
expectation of full legalization while promoting a de facto program 
in his report "Licit and Illicit Drugs," of the Consumers Union in 
these words, "One step short of legalizing marihuana would be the 
abolition of all penalties for possession * * *." When there is a de- 
termination to legalize or decriminalize marihuana, writers, leaders 
and followers put this communication filter to work. An organization 
based in Washington, B.C., called the National Organization for the 
Reform of Marihuana Laws better known as NORML, seems to be 
the most powerful. It puts out full page ads in magazines soliciting 
support. The ad is clever, misleading selection of data from the U.S. 
National, or "President's" Commission Report on Marihuana de- 
signed, of course, to support their goal. Four so-called myths are 
listed, and then denied in selective quotes from the Commission doc- 
ument under the title "Fact." For example : 

The myths are 1. "Marihuana leads to heroin," 2. "Marihuana use 
causes crime and aggressive behavior," 3. "Marihuana is addictive," 
4. "Marihuana users are societal dropouts." 

In each case the answers leave out important qualifications which 
are contained in the Shafer Report. 

Shafer said, for example — 

The fact is apparent that the chronic, heavy use of marihuana (1) may 
jeopardize social and economic judgments of the adolescent and (2) on the 
basis of past studies . . . seems to constitute a high-risk behavior, particularly 
among predisposed adolescents. 

In conclusion it reads, "The incidence (of this behavioral pattern 
in the U.S.A.) is too frequent to ignore." The Report also calls for 
discouragement of the drug's use in strong words and for more effec- 
tive measures to prevent its growth and all trafficking — both omitted 
from NORML's ad. 

Unfortunately, the manner in which the staff of the Shafer Com- 
mission has placed the words and paragraphs together in their first 
report is either a communications stupidity or it is a calculated effort 
to distract attention from the report's strong cautionary language 
which Dr. Henry Brill of the Commission has reported here was the 
true intention of the members of that body. 

Since the goal of the NORML group isWowedly to lobby against 
criminal penalties for marihuana use, and to work for the same kind 
of Government controls that are used on alcohol — Medical Economics, 
May 28, 1973 — it would be natural to expect them to filter out infor- 
mation which would interfere with their goal achievement — such as 
harmful effects from marihuana use — and to promote favorable 

Part of the funding which NORML achieves from the sale of its 
promotional literature, as well as from the Playboy Foundation, was 
used to buy the rights to the old 1936 antimarihuana movie "Reefer 


Madness" which is now being shown up and down the campuses and 
schools in Canada and the United States. 

The film is a horror-type documentary suggesting instant madness 
from the use of one joint of marihuana. The kids come and laugh 
themselves hoarse because the reality of smoking the drug, at least in 
the early stages, seems to them to have no bad effects — only pleasure. 

In a subtle way, however, the film reinforces the benign image 
filtering mechanims, so that a person becomes more and more im- 
mune to believing negative facts about the drug. "Scare stuff" say 
the kids — if you don't put your truth effectively. 

NORML also supplies a regular team of spokesmen for seemingly 
every state or civic hearing on legal changes or court trials. 

One would also have to ask what were the objectives, or communi- 
cation filters, of the National Coordinating Council on Drug Edu- 
cation in Washington, D.C., when a recent issue of its National Drug 
Reporter lists available study material and includes all of the fav- 
orable marihuana texts but makes no mention of cautionary writings 
such as the works of Drs. Nahas, Bloomquist, Louria, Paton, Mechou- 
lam, et cetera. 

Possibly the most serious distortion has been committed in Brecher's 
"Licit and Illicit Drugs." On what can be demonstrated as erroneous 
and incomplete information, the highly respected Consumers Union 
executive which sponsored the study, recommends "immediate re- 
peal of all Federal and State laws governing the growing, process- 
ing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marihuana," in an 
accompanying commentary. 

Brecher used as his chief source quoted references from Le Dain's 
first "Interim Report." He draws vital conclusions, suggesting that 
they are implied in the "Interim Report." The final Le Dain report 
"Cannabis," however, directly contradicts Brecher. 

For example, "Licit and Illicit Drugs," drawing from the Le Dain 
"Interim Report," claims for marihuana that 

1. it is not addicting; 2. it is tolerance-free; 3. its physical depend- 
ency reports are suspect; 4. its short-term psychological effects are 
slight, and have little clinical significance; 5. it has little toxicity 
with overdoses; 6. its stepping-stone-to-other-drugs theory is errone- 
ous; 7. there is no evidence of lung cancer. 

And summing up, "with respect to psychoses and other adverse 
psychological effects . . . the Le Dain report is on the whole quite 

Le Dain's final report contradicts or heavily qualifies each of these 
statements, for example : 

The effect of cannabis in the mind is a potent one. 

It is not unreasonable to assume that persistent resort to cannabis intoxica- 
tion may produce changes and impairment of will and mental capacity . . . (the) 
result of some biochemical effect. . . . 

We believe that by stimulating a taste for drug experience . . . cannabis must 
be reckoned as a potent factor contributing to the growth of multi-use drugs. 

What has come to our attention with respect to long-term effects since the 
Interim Report is a matter for cautious concern rather than optimism. 

On lung cancer, Le Dain suggests that it is "not an unreasonable 
possibility" while also admitting the "possible effect on chromosomes 
and human foetus." 


"Licit and Illicit Drugs" also puts forward the claim that : 

Marijuana is here to stay. No conceivable law enforcement program can curb 
its availability. 

Prohibition does not work. 

A law enforcement policy that converts marihuana-smokers into LSD or 
heroin users should be abandoned. 

While Le Dam's majority finding in contrast agrees that: 

In our opinion, these concerns justify a social policy designed to discourage 
the use of cannabis as much as possible. 

The state has a responsibility to restrict availability of harmful substances 
. . . and that such restriction is a proper subject of criminal law. 

A policy of making cannabis legally available under government controls 
would increase, rather than reduce availability. . . . 

And finally, there is "no doubt that criminal law creates risks for 
the trafficker." 

No possible excuse can be made for Brecher's failure to notify the 
Consumers Union of the contradicting evidence provided in the final 
Le Dain report, when he used the Le Dain Interim Report for his 
source of knowledge. 

Nor can the Consumers Union be excused for failure to draw atten- 
tion to the Le Dain conclusions and to the new, completely contra- 
dicting, evidence in ensuing monthly issues of their Consumer Re- 
ports which carry large advertisements for "Licit and Illicit Drugs" 
and are available on most Canadian newsstands. A request to the 
Consumers Union by last year's president of the Canadian Medical 
Association, Dr. Gustav Gingras, for such printed corrections in 
order to undo the harm caused to readers of this misleading book, 
was flatly refused. 


Evidence is accumulating on what I believe to be a relatively small 
number of people whose goals are not based on misconceptions about 
the harmful side of marihuana. How much influence they have, no 
one can say, but their efforts cannot be entirely neglected. One ele- 
ment openly seeks an overthrow of present society, and announce that 
pushing drugs is an integral part of the program. The Le Dain 
hearings produced evidence from one young witness that he and 
others intended to use drugs to destroy society, but it would probably 
be necessary to correct the drug program and its damages after they 
had succeeded. 

The "Weatherman" group in the United States has issued bulletins 
suggesting that "grass and the revolution are inseparable." And "The 
Brotherhood of Eternal Love" established by Dr. Tim Leary for the 
avowed purpose of societal change are thought by international po- 
lice forces to have been the world's largest manufacturers of illicit 
LSD. A number of people identified with their organization have 
been apprehended by police in the past several months with large 
quantities of hashish in their possession. 

Cash profit can also be a motive for information distortion. One 
prominent doctor told me that a cigarette manufacturing company 
had approached him to ascertain exact knowledge about marihuana. 
That company became convinced of its harm. . . . What about others, 
or less reputable groups attracted by the rewards from big time 


trafficking. Many youth have also found the sale of marihuana in 
small lots financially rewarding. 

It may be of interest to note that in Canada, a Commission on 
Youth under the Secretary of State turned out a document in 1971 
for national distribution calling on the government to legalize mari- 
huana for everyone over 18 on the grounds that "soft drugs are rela- 
tively harmless, or at least, so they seem in the absence of any con- 
clusive medical evidence to the contrary." Fortunately, prominent 
Canadian medical men and the Canadian Medical Association had 
strong words to say to the government about this misleading claim. 

Strangely, a committee at the National Y.M.C.A. headquarters 
turned out a newspaper for distribution to youth from each "Y" 
across Canada calling on young people to study the Commission re- 
port, referring specially to the marihuana recommendations. They 
asked youth to make their voices heard in parliament on the issue. 
Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed. 

The methods of the pressure groups sometimes raise serious ques- 
tions : 

SANE, short for "Committee for a Sane Drug Policy" of Boston, 
Mass., joins NORML in reaching out to knock down any opposition. 
When Dr. Nahas appeared before a committee of the Massachusetts 
legislature considering the reform of marihuana laws last year, this 
organization rilled the hall with supporters and presentations. Dr. 
Nahas, almost alone, presented the other side, based on research evi- 
dence. He was publicly attacked as "irresponsible," by NORML 
adherent and SANE cooperator Dr. Grinspoon. 

Recently, while in England, I was shown the June 1973 issue of a 
monthly English bulletin called Drugs in Society, which carried a 
brief account of Dr. Morton Stenchever's discovery of chromosome 
breakage at the University of Utah. In the issue for the following 
August, I was shown a written personal attack on the integrity of 
this highly qualified scientist written by a Marsha Semuels of Bos- 
ton, who signed herself as "coordinator" of SANE. Dr. Stenchever 
was charged in her letter with not being a pharmacologist, nor a 
medical researcher, but a teacher of gynecology "whose study had not 
been published," and in the writer's own words "probably never will 
be." "What has been reported as scientific evidence," she adds, "is 
merely a speech the doctor made at a conference. It cannot, therefore, 
be taken seriously." 

I, too, had talked and corresponded with Dr. Stenchever, and as 
you heard last week, he has conducted extensive research for years, 
advanced genetics is his scientific discipline and his study did appear 
in The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of January 

Under severe attack for his work, however, the doctor briefly con- 
sidered giving up the project rather than become involved in "polit- 
ical" issues. Vicious letters and phone calls, questions from those fi- 
nancing his research, a bitter attack in the college newspaper by its 
editor, came close to stopping this important research, which others, 
once tipped off, have now confirmed. 

The attacks on Dr. Nahas have been equally vicious. Following the 
publication and press release of his immunity damage studies on 


January 25, 1974, K. Keith Stroup, director of NORML, wrote a 
letter on February 2 to the Columbia University student newspaper, 
the Columbia Daily Spectator which was published February 22. 
After quoting a review criticizing the methodology of Dr. Nahas' 
book "Marihuana — Deceptive Weed" by a pharmacologist in the 
Journal of the American Medical Association, Stroup quotes from a 
review in the New England Journal of Medicine which calls the book 
filled with "half truths, innuendo and unverifiable assertions." Stroup 
neglects to mention that the author is Dr. Lester Grinspoon, promi- 
nent member of NORML's advisory board, who is then quoted di- 
rectly when he calls Nahas' work "psychopharmacological McCarthy- 

Stroup includes, as well, a quote from Dr. Norman Zinberg, also a 
NORML board member, which calls Nahas' work "meretricious 
trash," and done by a man who is "solely and cynically interested in 
picking up a few bucks by playing on the public's enormous concern 
about drug use." 

Since none of the national commissions reported similar finds, 
states Stroup, nor is it seen in clinical evidence he claims, Nahas must 
be dismissed as a man who "favors treating marihuana users as crim- 
inals" and whose attitude as well as his study is based on "self- 
righteous fanaticism." 

Stroup has erred in failing to mention that Canada's Le Dain 
Commission did foresee the possibility of future chromosome damage 
and it must be noted that the attack is based on the Nahas book, not 
the research paper. On a much more serious point, we must ask why 
a "responsible" body concerned about the well-being of humanity 
should not first seriously examine the actual full detailed facts of the 
Nahas research, its procedures, et cetera, in the light of the harmful 
implications to health and future generations should his findings be 
accurate — instead of attempting the character assassination of the 

No full detailed criticism of the extremely careful research done by 
this brilliant team from Columbia, which includes Dr. Morishima 
who testified here last week, has been done by NORML or the medical 
reviewers mentioned. 

Stroup sent an additional, even stronger letter to the dean of Dr. 
Nahas' department at Columbia, in a further attempt to discredit 
him. It was, of course, ignored, I am informed. 

Attacking the man personally and not his actual work raises ques- 
tions about the attacker and has no role in science. 

I would also like to mention that the Science Editor of the Asso- 
ciated Press in New York received an anonymous phone call on Jan- 
uary 24, 1974, just before publication of the Nahas study suggesting 
that the press story should not go out the next day since the work was 
garbage and at least one of Dr. Nahas' team intended to publicly 
break with the work because of his disgust with its inadequacy. The 
caller was ignored. His facts were wrong. 

I have presented evidence on certain American books, organizations 
and newspapers since many American journals and other printings 
are widely distributed and read in Canada and influence Canadians 
as well as Americans. 


Therefore, I hope very much that authors Grinspoon, Zinberg, 
Goode, and NORML and the Consumers' Union, will examine this 
new scientific evidence without delay. I am confident that they will 
find it convincing. When they do, I hope they will move immediately 
to give this information the wide public recognition it deserves — so 
that hundreds of thousands of young people on this continent who 
had believed their earlier statements about marihuana — statements 
which were based on now-outdated research — can obtain the informa- 
tion they need to help themselves to stop the use of the drug. 

Time does not permit proper attention to the educational problem. 
In Canada, reference is frequently made to the failure of all past 
antidrug educational methods based on recent reports by some Amer- 
ican drug education authorities, and their call for a moratorium on 
all drug education until better methods are devised. 

Such a delay in getting this new, clearcut knowledge about can- 
nabis into the hands of teachers, parents, youth, TV, the press and 
the public could only serve to continue the current escalation in the 
use of this drug. The benign image af cannabis must quickly be re- 
placed by the image of a drug with potential for serious personal 
and social harm. A massive educational job is needed immediately. 

While touring Capitol Hill last Friday, a group of the doctors who 
had been testifying here were approached by a boy of about 10 years 
of age who asked if they were Senators. On being informed that 
these men were world experts on marihuana, he simply asked "Will 
it hurt you?" He really wanted to know. So, I believe, do the vast 
bulk of Canadian and American youth. 

That is the end of my statement, sir; I will be glad to answer any 

Mr. Martin. Thank you very much for a very illuminating presen- 
tation. I must say that you have more or less answered all the questions 
I was thinking of asking. Because of this, and because of the lateness of 
the hour, therefore I believe we can safely let the record stand as is. 

On the order of the Chairman, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned subject to 
the call of the Chair. 1 


TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Sectjritt Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 
2300, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond, pre- 

Also present : David Martin, senior analyst, and A. L. Tarabochia, 
chief investigator. 

Senator Thurmond. The subcommittee will come to order. Since 
this hearing today is a continuation of the one yesterday, it will be 
unnecessary to swear the same witnesses. 

Professor Jones, you were sworn yesterday? 

Professor Jones. Yes, I was. 

Senator Thurmond. And you will just continue with your testi- 
mony today. Now since this portion of your testimony will deal with 
security in the armed services, we have decided to take this part of 
your testimony in an executive session. 

Mr. Martin, you may proceed now with your questions. 

Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Jones, in yesterday's testimony you gave evidence of a 
general nature about the scale of the current marihuana-hashish 
epidemic in the United States. Is there anything further you would 
like to say for the purpose perhaps of affirming your estimate of 
just how big this thing has become? 

Professor Jones. In every locality of young people on the college 
campus, the university campus, or in the high schools that I am able 
to reach — and I have pretty well been into a sampling across the 
whole United States — the involvement is of the order of 50 percent 
of our young people. This means, of course, that we have tens of 
millions of young people using marihuana, and some of them, of 
course, use more dangerous drugs. 

Probably at least 1 million people are dangerously involved at the 
present time with use of cannabis and another 5 to 10 million of them 
will progress to this level over the next few years unless somthing is 
done to reverse the trend. 

So the problem of marihuana probably is a good deal more serious 
than that of heroin, although the heroin problem is also great. I 



think that the heroin problem has been held in check more these last 
2 years than I would have thought, considering its runaway nature 
6 years ago. 

Mr. Martin. Primarily this was due to 

Professor Jones. The' law enforcement action in choosing the sup- 
pression of heroin— the current lack of use of heroin is only because 
it is not available, in my opinion. 

Mr. Martin. May I get your reaction to an assumption that I have 
been considering for the past few weeks. In the case of heroin, we had 
the law enforcement agencies working against the epidemic in a very 
concentrated way, throwing in larger numbers of men and operating 
with larger funds and improved technologies. We also had the en- 
tire school system basically on our side. No one thought that heroin 
was good and no one defended the right to use it. 

We also had the entire press on our side, so that you had a united 
front between Government law enforcement, the academic commu- 
nity, and the press. And this is why — the existence of the united front 
is why we have had so much success in reversing the trend in heroin 
use. Would you say that is a reasonable assumption ? 

Professor Jones. Without contradicting myself, I can modify my 
statement in that direction. What I meant to imply was that the 
average marihuana user is relatively unrestrained about the drug use, 
and if he is in a community of individuals who have heroin available, 
he is likely to use it. 

Now, I do think that the educational program against heroin has 
brought about an attitude even in the drug movement sector in so- 
ciety in which they are less likely to use heroin than in the past. And, 
as a matter of fact, I think I have found in my own sampling of 
students on the University of California campus this year, that the 
marihuana users are somewhat less inclined to use heroin than the 
last 2 years. 

But you see, last year and the year before that, 40 percent of those 
who were using marihuana more than three times a week had been 
experienced users of heroin. 

Mr. Martin. When you say experienced, you don't mean that they 
were addicts? 

Professor Jones. I don't mean that they were addicts, but they 
were using heroin every now and then, whenever it was available. 
And that number now has dropped to a little less than 30 percent; 
and it is the drop in the numbers of people that I have, that makes 
it a significant reduction statistically. 

Mr. Martin. Are these percentages that you give us based on 
your personal experiences with the 1,600 marihuana users that you 
have interviewed? 

Professor Jones. Yes, but the sample is larger because in my classes 
I give out questionnaires in which I coach the students as to what 
kind of information I am trying to get from them and why. And I 
believe that my questionnaires are fairly reliably answered, and I 
have a sampling that runs around 500 questionnaires filled out per 
year, and have kept such records over the last 5 years. So you see, 
that is 2,500 cases by itself. This does not represent those that I have 


interviewed, so putting them all together, I have records of a sort that 
would amount to a sampling of at least 4,000 individuals. 

Mr. Martin. I would like to pursue the question that I asked pre- 
viously. Professor Jones, in the case of the heroin epidemic. It now 
appears to be accepted by most people who have knowledge of the 
situation that we have succeeded over the past few years in reducing 
the problem significantly ? 

Professor Jones. We must have reduced the problem significantly, 
because otherwise we would have been in a disaster right now with 
regard to heroin, because heroin use from 1966 until at least 1972 was 
doubling every 9 months — an exponential rate of increase. And I had 
calculated and wrote one significant letter to the President — I don't 
write to the President of the United States very often — but I wrote 
a letter that was well conceived, and I believe accurate, pointing out 
that as of that time there probably were about 1 million heroin users 
in the United States ; most of whom should have been at a level in- 
volving dependency on the drug. 

Now I don't think we have increased very much since that time. 
I think the reason for it has been that the supplies of heroin simply 
have not been enough to keep up with the demand. The demand is 
not urgent; the demand is just this foolish demand on the part of 
cannabis users to take any kind of drug that is available. 

Mr. Martin. I want to come back again to the question I tried to 
make. In your opinion, is the fact that we succeeded in controlling, 
or perhaps even pushing back, the level of heroin used in this country 
due to the fact that we had not only the forces of the law 

Professor Jones. Always in successfully dealing with the drug use 
problems you have to use the coercive aspect of the law, the seizure 
of contraband, and the educative force of every agency in society to 
try and persuade people not to do these foolish things. 

Mr. Martin. Including primarily the academic community and the 
media ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. And everyone has been in concurrence with 
regard to the foolishness of using heroin. 

Mr. Martin. Heroin — but when it comes to the question of mari- 
huana we don't have this united front on the part of Government and 
the media and the academic community? From your testimony yes- 
terday, it appears — and correct me if this is not an accurate reading — 
that the academic community and the media by and large have been 
pushing in the opposite direction ? 

Professor Jones. The academic community is the main source of 
the problem with regard to propaganda to the use of marihuana; 
propaganda unfounded in scientific evidence. Nontheless, almost 
every campus has it 

Mr. Martin. You also have some critical words to say about the 
tolerant attitude of the media in your testimony ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. They have done their bit because of the sensa- 
tional aspect of the news in the academic world that the academic world 
recommends cannabis; or that is to say, marihuana and hashish. The 
media has been anxious to pick this up because it is sensational. 

Mr. Martin. And where the forces of education in the academic 
community and the media are operating, in effect, against the forces 


of law enforcement, it becomes very difficult for the law enforcement 
forces to do their job properly? 

Professor Jones. It certainly does. And on top of that, you have a 
significant segment of the social institutions of this country and their 
related components in the educational system urging the acceptance 
of a libertarian view to let everyone do what they want with regard 
to any life choice, including the use of drugs. And these individuals 
go well beyond even the libertarian point of view because they also, 
among their ranks, have those who positively extoll the pleasures and 
the desirable consequences of drug experimentation. 

Mr. Martin. Let's come back to the actual scale of the current 
marihuana-hashish epidemic. 
Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. You were presented yesterday with certain figures 
compiled by the Drug Enforcement Administration at the request 
of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, showing the up- 
ward trend in marihuana and hashish seizures by Federal agents 
over the past 5 years. The question was posed in yesterday's hearing : 
Do you feel that this has serious statistical significance in attempting 
to assess the scale of the current epidemic ? I was wondering whether 
you had an opportunity to consider this matter further, and whether 
you might perhaps have used your statistical experience to make 
some computations that would throw some light on the matter ? 

Professor Jones. I have taken the raw information that was available 
in the report and plotted it off on graph paper that I have already 
submitted for the record. But that is good enough to say that the 
points show a smooth orderly progression from year to year from 
1969 through 1973. 

There is no doubt that the rate is increasing, and also there is 
no doubt that one can say flatly, that the rate of increase for the 
last 2 years is surely exponential with an increase rate per year in 
the rate of seizure of 33 percent. This is not a steady state; it is an 
exponentially increasing rate, and one that will approximately 
double every 3 years in the level of marihuana and hashish con- 

It is also interesting that marihuana and hashish turn out to be 
increasing both at about the same rate, and the present number also 
indicate that the THC load, which is the active ingredient in both 
marihuana and hashish, turns out to be about equal for marihuana 
and hashish for the country at large. 
Mr. Martin. This is for the last year, 1973 ? 

Professor Jones. For the whole period— well, for the last 2 years, let's 
say. For the last 2 years, about the same. 

Mr. Martin. When you say it is moving upward at an exponential 
rate, what you mean is that on your graph paper it is not moving 
up in a straight line, it is moving in an upward sweeping curve? 

Professor Jones. In an upward sweeping curve. The curve is more 
parabolic shaped. It is precisely exponential. 

Mr. Martin. Would this rate of increase be more or less uniform 
for all segments of the population, or would it vary significantly 
from one section of the population to the other? 


Professor Jones. It varies significantly from one segment of the pop- 
ulation to another, but we can also say with regard to each subsection 
of the population, for the fraction of that subpopulation that is very 
susceptible to the use of drugs, that the rate of increase in use of 
marihuana and hashish and other drugs is the same. 

In certain groups in the country, though, the young people are 
fairly resistant to drugs, whereas in other segments the individuals 
are quite susceptible. 

Mr. Martin. Which segments of the population, in your opinion, 
are the most susceptible ? Which segments are most resistant ? 

Professor Jones. In the many hundreds of drug users I have inter- 
viewed I always get an idea about their origins, their family back- 
ground. The drug users run a little bit more than 2 to 1 from broken 
homes and from backgrounds in which the home environment is not 
particularly stable. If the home is not broken, you also have to take 
into account that either the mother or the father or both are alco- 
holics. That is a pattern that is very much involved with whether 
the youngster is going to be susceptible to drugs. 

I don't think there is a genetic factor, it is a part of the home 

Mr. Martin. You find higher incidence among the lower economic 

Professor Jones. Yes, the lower economic strata of the types of indi- 
viduals that would be involved in what would be called the ghetto 
structures. It is not a question of the blacks, because whites live in 
ghettos too. The Puerto Ricans, the whites at low economic levels, 
and the blacks have undoubtedly the worst drug abuse problem in 
any segment of the United States, being at least three times as bad 
as the middle-class population at large. 

Mr. Tarabochia. May I ask a question along those lines ? The fact 
that the Army, since it has eliminated the draft system, is forced 
to recruit personnel from the lower social strata — do you think that 
this would account for a higher incidence of drug abuse in the 
Armed Forces, and especially the Army, which may have lower 
standards than the Air Force or the Navy? 

Professor Jones. I think that this is exactly what one would have 
predicted on a theoretical basis since the habits that individuals have 
would follow from civilian life to the Army. Whether they use alco- 
hol or tobacco or marihuana, or whatever, they would keep those 
habits in going into the Army. The Volunteer Army, whose main 
attraction is that individuals could be higher paid than anything 
else they could do at home ; this works on a straight economic basis — 
that there would be more individuals going into the Army from the 
lower socioeconomic groups which are already contaminated by drug 
use, at least a factor of two and perhaps a factor of three more than 
the population at large. Then you will get new soldiers who start 
out at a level of drug use that is markedly above what has been the 
Army experience in the immediate past. 

Furthermore, you have to allow for the fact that drug use has been 
going up throughout the entire population. So these two combined 
means that the military experience, for the moment at least, form 

33-371 O - 74 - 19 


the seeds of individuals who can become very heavily involved with 
drugs. And the problem has worsened steeply over the last 5 years. 

Mr. Tarabochia. So that you have two elements that contrive to 
make the problem more accute: the lower strata of the population 
which is inured to drug abuse, plus the intellectuals who are propa- 
gandizing the use of drugs for reasons of their own? 

Professor Jones. Yes. The military was fortunate during the Viet- 
nam war in that they had few individuals of the college class who 
were heavily involved with drugs. 

But it is perfectly clear from the statistical records that I person- 
ally gathered while I was in Vietnam that the soldiers who were 
using drugs and got into trouble with heroin and heroin addiction 
were very much more likely to be the ones who were using mari- 
huana at home before they went into the Army. And the fraction 
of soldiers using drugs at the time they arrived in Southeast Asia 
matched the use of drugs in the population of the same age for that 
calendar year that we knew in the home population. 

Mr. Martin. I want to backtrack just a little bit to make sure 
that the record is clear. Now you say that the rate of use in the 
lower socioeconomic strata is greater than the average for the general 
population by a factor of two or three? 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Do you have a rough idea of what percentage of the 
present volunteer Army is recruited from the lower socioeconomic 
strata ? 

Professor Jones. No, I don't have that information, but we could 
get that. 

Mr. Martin. It would be the bulk of the Army 

Professor Jones. It would probably be the bulk of the Army at 
the moment, since it has gone over to the volunteer basis. But the 
point I was making was the fact that during this time when the 
military has had such an obviously difficult time with drug users, 
which was the war in Southeast Asia, the bulk of the soldiers who 
were being inducted into the Armed Forces were outside of the 
college class. If they had had even a third of their soldiers drawn 
from the college class, they undoubtedly would have picked up more 
drug users, because at the time it was the college class that was 
heavily contaminated with drugs. 

Now that contamination has spread more uniformly through the 
population as a whole, but there is still a differential, especially with 
regard to the level of drug use per person involved in which the 
lower socioeconomic groups are two to three times more involved 
with drugs than the middle class American. 

Mr. Martin. So, as a rough estimate, do you think that there may 
be twice as much drug use per capita in the Armed Forces ? 

Professor Jones. The potential for having difficulties of the types 
seen in Germany and Southeast Asia during the last 5 years has gone 
up, probably at least a factor of two with regard to the military 
because they are now taking in soldiers who are much more con- 
taminated to begin with in terms of habits to use drugs and mari- 
huana and beyond from the very beginning. 


Mr. Martin. Could you tell us something about your specific find- 
ings in the course of your investigations for the Department of 
Defense in Vietnam and in Thailand and in Germany and in the 
United States? 

Professor Jones. I made two trips. First of all, the one was I 
believe in 1970 and the other in 1972, to Vietnam, arriving in Saigon 
and going through a selection of bases by helicopter in South Viet- 
nam for the purpose of looking at the cause of heroin use and dem- 
onstrating to the Army what could be done about rehabilitation of 
heroin users. 

In my first visit, I interviewed approximately 28 heroin users in 
.'a 2-week period. I spent a lot of time in the interviews, so that 
represents quite a bit of work. I was able to show, and I knew before 
I went, that heroin users are sexually incapacitated. And we were 
able to use this information of a very significant type in drug 
prevention education. 

We worked out the usefulness of the system, and also it's a major 
factor of persuasion in getting the heroin addict to want to be re- 
habilitated ; to remind him of the fact that the sexual functions can 
come back. 

Mr. Martin. During this trip you also made some observations 
relating to the use of Vietnamese marihuana which was very wide- 
spread among our Armed Forces? 

Professor Jones. Yes, I looked into the matter of cannabis inten- 
sively. I did much more than just interview heroin addicts. I was 
interviewing and talking to every soldier and officer I came in con- 
tact with with regard to a large number of questions that I had 
in mind about the drug problem in the Armed Forces. 

Mr. Martin. These interviews were over and above the interviews 
with the 28 heroin addicts? 

Professor Jones. Yes, indeed. Altogether I would say in the three 
trips to Southeast Asia that I interviewed 88 heroin addicts, but I 
probably interviewed on the order of 300 individuals who were not 
involved with the use of drugs, because I considered every person 
that I would talk to, that I could get a chance to ask some questions, 
a source of such information. 

Mr. Martin. We are interested in the information you gathered 
specifically with relation to cannabis rather than heroin, because we 
are not concerned with heroin as such in these hearings. 

Professor Jones. The primary problem in Southeast Asia was can- 
nabis. Heroin was a problem too, but the cannabis was also a very grave 

Mr. Martin. How did it affect the security of our Armed Forces, 
or are you in a position to offer any enlightenment on that? 

Professor Jones. Well, the use of cannabis was a good deal more 
prevalent than the use of heroin. And also, it has such a persistent 
effect in making soldiers sloppy in their thinking, susceptible to all 
sorts of suggestions of an absurd nature, and careless in all matters. 

Mr. Martin. Is this based on your personal observations or is this 
based on conversations with the commanding officers? 

Professor Jones. I did not find a commanding officer who knew 


that much about the cannabis problem, but they were worried about 
the use of cannabis. This was my own information, largely based 
on the total interviews that I have made of cannabis users. They are 
all persistently affected in a number of separate ways that can be 
documented, in mental functions, all in the direction of being less 
acute in their thinking, less organized in their thinking, less memory, 
and able to take less responsibility. 

Mr. Martin. Did any of the officers you spoke to express concern 
that the breakdown of discipline or the weakening of discipline in 
the American Armed Forces in Vietnam might somehow be related 
to the widespread use of cannabis ? 

Professor Jones. The officers I talked to in Vietnam were worried 
about cannabis because they suspected that this may have been a 
part of some of the terrible events such as the murdering of officers. 

Mr. Martin. The so-called fragging? 

Professor Jones. The fragging of officers, yes. And believe me, all 
of the officers were uptight about this situation because they didn't 
know when it might be their turn. The incidence wasn't so great 
that it would be likely to induce a neurosis in the officers, but it was 
great enough to worry about, and they knew that this kind of event 
was not associated with the heroin user, but rather with the can- 
nabis user, and also the amphetamine user. But the amphetamine 
user also had to be a cannabis user, and the tie between these two 
is very, very great. 

Mr. Martin. There were a number of officers who expressed con- 
cern to you that the incidence of fragging, which reportedly was 
very high, might be directly related to the widespread use of cannabis ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. They also believe might be due to 
the amphetamines that were used there. I am not able to tell you at 
this time, I will have to go back to my notes, what the amphetamine 
was that was being used, but it was an amphetamine that produced 
a psychotic state. It is not available in the United States. 

Mr. Tarabochia. Was it speed? 

Professor Jones. No. Speed is methedrine, and this was a German- 
made amphetamine which has not been available in the United 

Mr. Tarabochia. This was available in Vietnam? 

Professor Jones. Yes, it was available in Vietnam. The one thing 
that was fortunate in Vietnam was that they did not, during the 
years of the war at least, up to 1973, have to face the special prob- 
lems of cocaine users. But the Armed Forces were rightfully worried 
that at some point in time cocaine might be introduced. The drug 
that was mostly available in Vietnam, or the two drugs, were the 
home grown varieties of hemp, the cannabis drug, and also the pure 
heroin which was available in large quantities below the world 
market price. 

Mr. Tarabochia. Am I correct in assuming that the potency of 
native cannabis in Vietnam is higher than the ones found here, 
Mexico, and Jamaica? 

Professor Jones. Practically all of the users that I interviewed 
were convinced it was 10 times higher than at home. I think the fact 


is that it would probably be about rive times higher now, because 
the quality of marihuana at home has gone up recently quite signifi- 
cantly. But in the period of 1971 to 1973 when I was getting this 
data in Southeast Asia, those who were using marihuana freely said 
that it was 10 times more potent than at home. It would certainly 
be 10 times more potent than, say, varieties grown in California, 
and maybe 50 times more potent than the weak little marihuana 
grown in flowerpots on window sills. 

Mr. Tarabochia. And T presume that because of the fact that it 
was locally grown and easily available it was even more pure than 
the type of marihuana that can be found in the local market ? 

Professor Jones. It Avas just stronger. Southeast Asia is a tropical 
zone. It has good soil. And the marihuana plants grow high with 
rank foliage, and the foliage is glistening with the resin that is the 
active ingredient in marihuana. 

Mr. Martin. To come back to the question of the problem of 
security and the use of cannabis. Apart from the fact that many 
officers expressed concern to you that there might be a connection 
between fragging and the widespread use of cannabis, do you have 
personal knowledge of any specific instances where there were viola- 
tions of security or breakdowns in performance — in combat perform- 
ance — or in the use of vehicles or aircraft, as a result of the use of 
cannabis ? 

Professor Jones. No, I was not in a position to get that kind of 
information. The only infraction of military rules that I actually 
saw while I was there was that a sergeant and an enlisted man were 
driving into a camp enclosure in a military truck, and a sentry 
searched the truck and found prostitutes in it. But that was the only 
thing. And then, of course, the women were shooed out. 

Mr. Martin. But you have no information that this was specific- 
ally related to the use of marihuana? 

Professor Jones. No, it was not related to the use of marihuana. 
But it is interesting that the segment of the soldiers who were 
very much interested in prostitutes is very likely to be the segment 
of soldiers that are interested in the use of the drugs, especially 
marihuana. And I never saw a heroin user in the army who had not 
been active in the use of prostitutes, whereas in soldiers in general I 
doubt if the use of prostitutes is as high as 50 percent, because the 
more restrained individual is not so crude in his behavior. 

Mr. Martin. But were you not saying a while ago, Professor 
Jones, that heroin inevitably results in a loss of sexual potency ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. But these were the individuals earlier in 
the stage of their career as soldiers who had not yet taken heroin, 
who then became heroin addicts. In the beginning they were using 
marihuana and using prostitutes, too. 

Mr. Tarabochia. Also, the use of prostitutes as a means to obtain 
the money to pursue the habit of drugs. You have females who 
prostitute themselves. 

Professor Jones. Well, it was different in Southeast Asia. The 
prostitutes there were not interested in getting money for drugs, 
whereas in New York City, where I have interviewed prostitutes, 


they turn out to run very heavily into heroin addiction. And it 
works out in two ways; one, they have essentially sexual impotence 
as far as the emotional side of sex is concerned, so it makes their 
business just a mechanical one; and they are also interested in being 
prostitites because they can get enough money to buy the drugs that 
they need. So it is a feedback circle. 

In Southeast Asia the prostitutes are not drug addicts, and the 
only source of effective education is that the prostitutes knew that 
those who were using heroin would not function sexually. So they 
were spreading the word and were the only source of precautionary 
information that I encountered. 

Mr. Martin. I want to come back to the question again of the 
general impact on our Armed Forces and how, specifically, the use 
of cannabis on an epidemic scale may relate to the question of 
security in the Armed Forces. It has been testified at the hearings 
held over the past several days by a number of psychiatrists that 
people under the influence of cannabis tend to be suggestible; they 
can be more easily manipulated by agitators. 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. Would that jibe with your own experience with 
cannabis users ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. I have been pulling my notes together along 
this line. But there is no doubt that the marihuana user is more 
susceptible. We classify marihuana as a hypnotic drug. I think it is 
fair to say that one of the persistent effects of marihuana is this 
hypnotizing depression of the will and the ability to use reason in a 
precautionary fashion. They are very much more likely than anyone 
else to be drawn into impetuous and foolish activities. And I have 
two examples that I think are quite secure in the support of this 

Many of the young men that I have interviewed on the college 
campus who are marihuana users have been induced into homosexual 
activities. But if they confide this to me, it is usually on a basis that 
they have been very worried about it and they have been anxious 
to talk to someone who is professionally qualified along these lines, 
because they felt that these experiences had been very hurtful to 

I have also had three in this category who have sobered up by 
going off of the use of marihuana and hashish totally for a period 
of several months, and these three have said without any doubt on a 
reinterviewing that their foolishness in taking on a homosexual 
experience was due to the fact that their will was so depressed that 
they just were not able to say no. 

Mr. Martin. Let me come back to the question of manipulation 
by agitators. 

Professor Jones. I did not finish my examples, though. 

Mr. Martin. Go ahead. 

Professor Jones. The other big evidence for this is the relationship 
between marihuana and heroin. If a marihuana user has not yet 
used heroin, he will be vociferous in saying, "I would certainly not 
use heroin under any circumstance. People could stand there and 
even offer me money to use it and I would not use it because I would 


only use marihuana." Yet, I never saw in my own interviews of 
heroin users, which is now up about 600 individuals, I never 
saw a one that did not use marihuana to begin with. 

Mr. Martin. You did not see a one in all 600 interviews? 

Professor Jones. All 600 interviewed were marihuana or hashish 
users before they became heroin addicts. 

In Southeast Asia I interviewed a number of individuals who were 
obvious smokers, so I asked every smoker, "Have you ever been 
offered a skag cigarette?" And they would say, "Sure, it would be 
impossible not to be in Southeast Asia as a smoker and not have 
someone offer you within a year's time or so a skag cigarette." But the 
smokers would not accept a skag cigarette. But if this person were 
a marihuana user, surely the chance must be high that he would 
accept the skag cigarette, because this is where the heroin users 
came from. 

I never saw a heroin user in Southeast Asia who had not been a 
marihuana user. Now, the only difference between my records in this 
regard and the Army questionnaires that have been filled out — the 
Army kept track — Well, I saw a tabulation of 2,500 heroin users in 
Vietnam, and I am sure the Army record by this time has gotten into 
much higher numbers. But 2,500 is a lot. 

The Army showed that approximately 10 percent of the question- 
naires filled out by the heroin users indicated they had never used 
marihuana. But I think that is because, if you just hand a person 
a sheet and do not explain enough, you may get a little bit of misin- 

Two of the individuals out of 88 that used heroin that I inter- 
viewed put down or tried to tell me at the beginning of the interview 
that they had never used marihuana before they used heroin. And 
in the course of the interview I found out that they had used mari- 
huana before thev had used heroin. I said, "Well, why did you lie to 
me?" And they said, "We did not lie. We were not addicted to mari- 
huana, and therefore it did not count." And this is the reason why 
the Army, with regard to questionnaires, finds that only 90 percent 
of heroin users have used marihuana before when the real thing 
is close to 100 percent. 

Mr. Martin. You think the questionnaire method, then, is defec- 
tive in trying to elicit a clear picture of the drug situation ? 

Professor Jones. The Army has not done this intentionally, of 
course. It is just the nature of questionnaires. You never get quite 
as accurate information from questionnaires because the questions 
are not asked free of some of the ambiguities that people can read 
into the question. And these two individuals were probably correct 
in their own mind in saying, "Well, they were looking for addictive 
drugs and I was not addicted to marijuana. I just used it occasionally. 
It did not count." 

Mr. Martin. This points to another question dealing with our 
general situation in the country. Most of the information we have 
about the prevalence of cannabis use is based on questionnaires? 

Professor Jones. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Martin. Obviously, they do not go in for personal interview- 
ing on a large scale ? 


Could this be part of the explanation for the great discrepancy 
between official estimates of the extent of cannabis use and the 
calculations you have made, based on the amount we know was 
seized or intercepted by Federal agents over the past 5 years? 

Professor Jones. I think it explains the secondary discrepancies 
in information and explanation. I do not think there are any major 
discrepancies in information, because everyone has agreed that we 
have a problem, not only with cannabis, but with LSD and ampheta- 
mines and heroin. The question is trying to decide precisely what 
fraction of each subsector of the population is involved, and that 
is why I say it is a secondary variation. But I do believe that you get 
more accurate information from a one-to-one interview, especially 
when the person is experienced in conducting the interview. 

Mr. Martin. Coming back to the question again of manipulation, 
there is one specific aspect of this that the subcommittee would be 
particularly interested in. It is common knowledge by this time that 
there are organized subversive groups within the Armed Forces. 
There has been a good deal of organized agitation and the distribu- 
tion of literature and the formation of underground groups within 
the Armed Forces, and so on. 

Have you heard about this phenomenon in the course of your 
travels around Asia and Germany? 

Professor Jones. Well, I certainly am fairly sophisticated with 
regard to the existence of revolutionary groups and the mischief that 
they do, and I did pick up in my studies for the Army individuals that 
must have been affected by this. This was not in Southeast Asia. 

I think in Southeast Asia, under the conditions of actual warfare, 
that there would have been likely less of this. But in Germany, where 
the troops were idle and the commanding officers perhaps not so 
pressed to take care of this, it would be more likely. At least in 
Germany I encountered two individuals that I would say were ex- 
tremely alienated from our society and considered themselves revolu- 
tionaries. And they both said, as a measure of their alienation, that 
as soon as they came back home they were going to get guns and start 
killing whites at random. 

One of these happened in the presence of an Army captain, who 
was a trained psychologist, and afterwards I said to him, "Are you 
not going to report this? Here is this man who is obviously so 
agitated that you can consider him beyond the range of just an 
ordinary person with a behavioral disturbance. He is a dangerous 

And he sort of shrugged his shoulders about it. But the fact is that 
I take this man very seriously. I think that he and the other one who 
was saying the same thing 

Mr. Martin. Both of these men were on cannabis ? 

Professor Jones. Both of these men were cannabis users. I think they 
were suffering from cannabis toxicity, and I think they were also 
suffering from being worked on by revolutionaries in the Armed 

Mr. Martin. Is this an assumption on your part? 

Professor Jones. It has to be an assumption because I do not know 
more than that. I would have liked to have explored this in more 


detailed conversations with the man, but it is — this kind of sophisti- 
cated emotional planning to go home and start shooting people is 
not likely to occur just spontaneously with hashish use or marihuana 
use. You have to have someone to put the bee in the bonnet, so to 
speak. The propagandists must have been working on these indi- 

Mr. Tarabochia. Professor Jones, with regard to your statement, 
were you aware of the presence of civilian legal counsel whose purpose 
was to assist military personnel under court-martial proceedings for 
violations of drug abuse, who were also members of radical leftist 
organizations such as the National Lawyers Guild or other related 
organizations ? 

Professor Jones. No, that did not come up during my visit. But I 
was not involved in any of the court-martial proceedings or any of the 
legal proceedings against these drug addicts. I was at the drug 
treatment centers, and the climate there would be to soft-pedal any 
information of this sort, because my attitude and the attitude of the 
medical personnel would be to get as much cooperation from these 
men as possible. 

I do not remember any discussion of possible court-martial 

Mr. Tarabochia. Are you aware that a group of these organiza- 
tions has brought suit against General Davidson because of the alleged 
harassment of the soldiers who are suspected drug users ? 

In other words, removing the doors from the rooms of known 
drug abusers ? 

Professor Jones. I did hear this or read it. I think I read it in the 
newspapers. But I do not know any more about it than that. 

Mr. Tarabochia. How would you construe such an action, in view 
of — in the light of your past experience and studies ? 

Do you think that this is an attempt to camouflage the drug abuse 
epidemic, under constitutional rights of a soldier? 

Professor Jones. Well, I do not know, of course. But I would guess 
that that would be a part of the motivations of these individuals. The 
antiwar groups and the legalization-of-drug groups are overlapping 
movements, and have some of the same people involved. Almost all 
of the individuals in these present movements are highly alienated 
from society. You find all sorts of weird notions characterizing them. 
It would be very easy if someone wanted to measure the degree of 
alienation, to construct a questionnaire or a word choice or some- 
thing of this sort and get a profile on such persons. But I have not 
done that. 

Mr. Martin. A few more questions by way of clarifying some of 
our discussion. In speaking about the increase in the drag epidemic, 
you make the point that not merely are there more people involved 
in many strata of society, but that there has been a rate of progres- 
sion in the use of marihuana and hashish affecting every individual 
user. That is, if they started a year or two ago, they are probably 
using substantially more today. 

Professor Jones. Every marihuana user tends to progress in use, not 
only in frequency of use but in dose. And the more that they do pro- 
gress, the more exhilarating it becomes. We find this in all sorts of 


In tobacco users, a cigarette smoker may start and smoke maybe 
one cigarete a day. But the average person quickly gets up to a pack 
a day and would go beyond that except the cigarette smoker has too 
much time wasted if they smoke more than a pack a day. It becomes 
mechanically difficult. 

Mr. Martin. This progression in the amount used by the average 
user — would not that, perhaps, be reflected in the answers they get to 
questionnaires ? 

Professor Jones. Yes, it would be reflected. 

Mr. Martin. It would be reflected ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. Well, I have no difficulty in my questionnaires 
of getting information about rate of drug use and showing in my 
records of several thousand cases that the average amount of drug use, 
such as cannabis, progresses with duration of time of use of cannabis. 
The person who is using cannabis daily, for example, takes about 
&V2 years to get to that point from beginning, say, in occasional use. 
The alcoholic who is using alcohol to the same equivalent status in 
terms of intoxicating effect has taken 20 to 25 years to come to this 
point from the beginning, in which he was using alcohol occasionally. 

Mr. Martin. So if a beginning cannabis user comes into the Armed 
Forces and nothing is done in the form of education to discourage 
the habit, the chances are that he will continue to use more and more 
and more while serving in the Armed Forces? 

Professor Jones. He will accelerate more rapidly than at home, be- 
cause he has more time on his hands. He tends to be bored, and also, the 
drug is more readily available and the climate in both Germany and 
Southeast Asia for the social life of the soldiers has been one of peer 
reinforcement of the drug use. So that all three of these combine 
to make the progression into drug use much more rapid than at home. 

Mr. Martin. What do you think could be done by the Armed 
Forces to cope with this problem ? What prophylactic measures could 
they take ? 

Professor Jones. Here I would like to talk about an hour. 

Mr. Martin. We will not be able to give you quite an hour. But 
suppose you do your best in 20 minutes or half an hour. 

Professor Jones. Well, I think this is the No. 1 problem, what can 
the military do. At the present time the drug preventive education in 
the military services is about the same as it is in the college campuses — 
essentially nil. It would be possible to turn this around. 

Mr. Martin. Is it nil on the question of heroin ? 

Professor Jones. Not now. During the time when the heroin problem 
was not recognized, there was no campaign against it. 

Mr. Martin. But today there is an effective antiheroin educational 
campaign ? 

Professor Jones. There is an effective antiheroin campaign in the 

Mr. Martin. Is there an effective — at least effective in some degree — 
anti-cannabis education program ? 

Professor Jones. No, there is not. Fourteen months ago in my last 
visit to Southeast Asia, part of the arrangements for my trip through 
the Department of Defense was that I would be one of the speakers in 
an all-military conference on drug abuse being held in Bangkok, and 


when I arrived the commanding officer was really in quite a state, 
because the conference had been taken over by some of the psychia- 
trists and physicians who were recommending the legalization of 
cannabis and they were holding that cannabis is okay. 

Well, they had had a day of this, and I was the lead speaker in 
the morning, and in the middle of my talk several of these people 
began to challenge me. And of course, I just backed them right into 
a corner, and each time I would show the foolishness of their state- 
ments I would get loud cheers from the people present. In other 
words, the majority of the professionals in the Army who were part 
of this conference agreed with me, but they did not know how to 
formulate the answers to these promarihuana people. 

Well, that conference then did not get beyond this point, because 
they kept me on the platform for the rest of the day and into the 
night. We just were discussing this problem. But I can tell you that 
the same situation also exists in Germany, but I did not get tested 
in the same way. But I certainly ran into many individuals in the 
Army in Germany who believed that cannabis is okay. 

The majority of Army professionals did not feel that way. 
Mr. Martin. Who were the individuals — soldiers, officers ? 
Professor Jones. It was likely to be individuals entrusted with the 
drug abuse problem. They would say, in effect, cocaine is bad and 
heroin is bad, but marihuana is okay. 

Mr. IMartin. These were individuals that were entrusted with the 
drug education program or the drug rehabilitation program or other 
aspects of the drug problem ? 

Professor Jones. They tend to be the same. The drug rehabilitation 
program tends to be coextensive with the drug education program. So 
this kind of confusion which comes from the effort to legalize mari- 
huana at home that has spilled over into the Armed Forces, and it 
makes it very difficult to come to grips with the central problem in 
drug abuse in the military, which is cannabis, because it is from 
cannabis that drug abuse of all other kinds stems. And also, cannabis 
by itself is perhaps more of a threat to members of the Armed Forces 
than the other drugs. 

Heroin users, at least as long as they are supplied with heroin, 
might be able to do their job in the military and not make quite such 
blunders as the cannabis users. The cannabis users are never sober 
and never out of the umbrella of the hypnotic effects of the stuff. 
They are just patsies to make foolish, impetuous decisions. 

Mr. Martin. When you say they are never sober, does this also 
apply to the occasional cannabis user who smokes a cigarette or two 
a week? 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. They are never completely sober? 
Professor Jones. They are never sober. 
Mr. Martin. Why is that? 

Professor Jones. Because there is a residual effect on the brain that 
can be tested for, with regard to clinical approaches to the problem or 
clinical approaches to assessing that effect. And also, everything we 
know about cannabis in terms of the measurement of how much goes 


into the body and into the brain and stays there, a part of the burden 
is still there days, weeks, months later. 

Mr. Martin. This bears on the testimony given by Dr. Axelrod at 
yesterday's hearing? 

Professor Jones. Yes, it does, and the subsequent discussion we had 
between him and me. 

Mr. Martin. Would you continue ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. 

Now, I think the drug preventive education in the military could 
be made just as effective as I have been able to demonstrate on the 
college campus. As I have mentioned before at these hearings, I have 
given a course for 5 years. Every 6 months I give a course lasting 
3 months, offered to anyone who wishes to attend. It started with 
approximately 130 students taking it for credit. At present I have 
390 taking it for credit. There has been a steady increase in enroll- 

Most of the students who come into the course are drug users, at 
least measured by the fact that they use cannabis on some kind of a 
recurrent basis. There is also no doubt but what the students in a 
relatively short period of time will change their attitude about 
cannabis and stop use of cannabis. I do not get everyone in the 
class off cannabis and other drugs, but the majority of the class will 
be off drugs, usually in about 2 months of the course. Some indi- 
viduals that have been holdouts may not get off of cannabis for 
another month or two beyond the course. But I do have information 
that they get off. 

Interestingly, in each class there has always been the person that 
defends cannabis, the student who is very bright and also aggressive 
enough so that he can stand up in class and argue with me. In each 
class, that is always the person that I can count on for sure coming 
over to our side and quitting cannabis use. 

Mr. Martin. Because he is bright? 

Professor Jones. Because he is bright, and because he has put out 
the arguments that have to be put out from his standpoint, and they 
have been answered. All of the arguments about the safety of cannabis 
or the desirability of using it as a worthwhile experience can be 
completely put to rest as far as the young people are concerned, and 
also today the hazards that they face such as to the possible damage 
to their offspring, the fact that they may not progress in the develop- 
ment of minds and bodies such as they hope to have — these are 
enough to deter them. And finally, if individuals are not able to see 
the advantages of keeping their minds going, there is the fact that 
every person I have ever talked to about drugs can visualize what 
is happening to the lungs. The problem in the lungs from cannabis 
use is of itself enough to deter cannabis use. 

And then there is the matter at the end about sexuality. Sexuality 
simply goes with cannabis use, as with heroin, except it fades more 
slowly than with heroin, but just as surely. And as you know now, 
there is not only the evidence of impotency and lack of sexual vigor 
in all forms, but there is the direct measurements as presented here 
by Dr. Kolodny and coming from the Masters group, which is the 


most eminent group in the sexual sciences, showing the depression of 
male sex hormones to an alarming degree. 

These things are all one needs in fully effective drug prevention 

Mr. Martin. And you feel the things you have mentioned as 
ingredients of an effective drug education program go over just 
as well with GI's as they would with college students ? 

Professor Jones. Yes, I do. And I can say this not idly, but when 
I was in Germany I talked to soldiers brought together for this 
purpose, and in each of my visits in Southeast Asia I did the same 
thing. There is no doubt that I am just as effective with soldiers as 
I am in the classroom. 

What I have been urging the military to do for at least 2 years 
is to set up drug educative programs in which I can have a major 
input, because I know how to do this. And I can train people so they 
can be almost as effective as I can be with regard to handling of this 

I have also offered to make for the military — and this is currently 
being arranged, but we have not made them yet — a series of video 
tapings of lectures in the style and using examples that I think would 
be most effective to the military. They have video tape playing 
machines everywhere that they could use these. Using me canned 
would be a lot better than letting the average sergeant discuss the 
problem, or the average captain, who is not informed about what 
should or could be said. But it does mean that with such information, 
the average drug prevention officer in the military would be on a 
very secure basis to follow it up, then, with what he can say to those 
soldiers that are involved. 

Mr. Martin. That leads to a rather basic question, Professor Jones. 
Before you can have the military accept the essential fact that we 
are confronted with a major cannabis epidemic, and before the 
military, accepting this fact, can embark on an educational program 
adequate to cope with the situation, would it not be necessary for the 
Government of the United States or for those segments of the Govern- 
ment of the United States that are concerned with drug abuse and 
drug prevention, or drug abuse prevention, to be more correct — would 
not the Government have to initiate such a crash program of educa- 
tion directed to the people as a whole? I mean, you cannot isolate 
the military from the Nation as a whole? 

Professor Jones. I think you put your finger on the real problem. 
The military has tried, of course, many times to inhibit drug use. 
But in the conference that I attended in Southeast Asia, it was an 
obvious example of how a good intention on the part of the army to 
get everyone educated and cooperating with regard to a real problem 
in presenting drug education, that this was being torpedoed by those 
who felt that marihuana is a tolerable drug. These individuals voci- 
ferously attacked anyone present who was against the use of mari- 
huana/ largely by calling them a bunch of "juicers," referring to 
alcohol use, and they were willing to tolerate alcohol but intolerant 
of cannabis, whereas cannabis users knew that cannabis was less 
harmful than alcohol, and actually the use of marihuana is a step 


ahead. "As long as you have to have one drug or another, you might 
as well have cannabis." This was the argument. 

Mr. Martin. Were the people who made these statements actually 
involved in the Armed Forces drug program ? 

Professor Jones. These people were involved in the Armed Forces 
drug conference in Southeast Asia in March of 1973, which I 

Mr. Martin. Does this not strongly suggest that there is a serious 
lack of education on the subject of cannabis in the Armed Forces? 

Professor Jones. There has been a very serious lack of education 
on the subject of cannabis in the Armed Forces. And a step of the 
same sort is the fact that the military has always been undecided 
as to what it is going to do about the use of alcohol in the military 
forces. There has never been a clear-cut decision that it either should 
be tolerated in terms of ad lib use or that anything should be done 
about it. 

I think the same kind of schizophrenic debate with alcohol abuse 
has been passed over into cannabis because it is so easy to prove, with 
the information afoot, that cannabis is the same sort of drug. 

Mr. Martin. The information available? 

Professor Jones. The present information that is available to most 
individuals will lead them to believe that alcohol and cannabis are 
very similar types of drugs. 

Mr. Martin. Whereas you testified yesterday that cannabis is a 
much more dangerous type of drug? 

Professor Jones. At least by a factor of 10 and probably 30 or 
more times more harmful. 

Mr. Martin. And, as you pointed out before, smoking cannabis 
two or three times a week is enough to leave a person in a permanent 
state of intoxication or partial intoxication ? 

Professor Jones. We never see this in alcohol. A person getting 
over it, they may have a hangover the next day, but within a week he 
surely is completely sober, with no detectable traces. 

Mr. Martin. Within a week? 

Professor Jones. Within a week for sure. 

Mr. Martin. It takes that long to get over alcohol intoxication? 

Professor Jones. I dare say from a state of drunkenness, in which 
case we know that the hangover lasts the next day, that we would be 
on safe grounds if we said that a week later that that person would 
have no detectable traces by even the most advanced techniques of 
measuring mental function. The effects of alcohol wear off within 
that time — whereas, with marihuana, a person using marihuana heavily 
would easily have detectable traces of it over a period of perhaps a 
full week from that single use. And as a chroriic user, he may still have 
accumulated effects from all of the uses that he has had. It is quite 

Mr. Martin. Let me pursue this question. If we are going to have 
an effective program of education on cannabis in the Armed Forces, 
this would have to be part of a larger national program of education 
on cannabis ? 

Professor Jones. It would be a lot easier for the military to do it 
as a part of a national program against the use of cannabis. 


Mr. Martin. Reflecting a commitment by the Government? 

Professor Jones. Reflecting a commitment by the Government, so 
that the military does not have to do it alone, and so that the indi- 
viduals who are so outspoken and not hesitant at all about attacking 
individuals — after all, most of the people that were from this country 
who were witnesses during these hearings testified to the extent of 
personal attack on them. Surely, I can add to this from my own 
records as to how many times I have been attacked by those who are 
either using marihuana or trying to legalize marihuana. 

This is an unpleasant thing to have to face by any person. And in 
the Armed Forces, our generals and lesser commanders are not used 
to being singled out for this kind of semiprofessional debate in which 
there is personal vituperation involved, as well as discussion of some 
of the professional issues. People tend to shy away from this. It 
becomes a nasty, unpleasant situation. 

Mr. Martin. Would that not also be true for some of the people in 
Government ? 

Professor Jones. Yes, I think so. But then we also have within 
Government, as we had evidence in the Armed Forces, individuals 
who feel that marihuana is tolerable, and who, for varying reasons, 
are on the side of the forces who are trying to legalize drugs at the 
present time. So the Government does not have a monolith of unity 
of thought on the subject of marihuana, and there is divisiveness 
afoot. It is hard to move Government when there is a division, even 
though the division may involve the minority. 

Mr. Martin. Is this division reflected in any way in the publica- 
tions put out by the Government, the various Government drug 
offices ? 

Professor Jones. Yes. It is easily seen in the official reports of 
Government. I think that the individuals who are involved are, 
perhaps, a real minority, not more than 10 percent of those who are 
professionally involved. But they are so emotionally bent on doing 
what they can that they almost ruin the whole report, because they 
manage to get their influence in in every single channel that they can 
exercise it. You can see this. 

The Shafer Commission report was completely distorted by just 
a few individuals. I think that the report of the Secretary of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, the three separate reports, were also dis- 
torted for the same reason. The current one, which counts as an 
enormous improvement over the other two, is still a report that is 
inadequate scientifically and not at all of the level that one expects. 

Mr. Martin. When you say it is inadequate scientifically, it does 
not reflect the new scientific information available ? Or what is the 
nature of this inadequacy ? 

Professor Jones. When it discusses the new scientific information, 
it does not manage to focus on the significance of it. For example, in 
reviewing the work of Soueif in Egypt, they never once mentioned 
the fact that this is important because it identifies in large-scale 
observation the persistence of cannabis effects, nor does it even 
bother to quote the underscored conclusions of Soueif, who was very 
definite about noting that the effects of cannabis occurred in hashish 
users in every stratum of society, except the greater the intellectual 


achievement of tho individuals the more seriously they were affected 
by hashish. 

Furthermore, the report went on to say — that is, the report from 
Health, Education, and Welfare — they went on to suggest that the 
information by Soueif might be put aside, since there was not this 
level of hashish use in the United States, inferring that marihuana is 
still at a low level of usage and at a low level of strength of prepara- 
tions used, which we know not to be the case. Especially during the 
last 2 years, when hashish has come into very common use, approxi- 
mately half of the marihuana users are getting their cannabis in the 
form of hashish at the present time. 

I know from my interviews of cannabis users that they are using 
potent varieties of hashish commonly. So we have a situation — we 
can say confidently that the United States has more hashish users 
than Egypt. 


Mr. Martin. Are you talking about more hashish users in absolute 
numbers or per capita ? 

Professor Jones. In absolute numbers, I think we have more 
hashish users in the United States than Egypt. 

Mr. Martin. Then not on a per capita basis ? 

Professor Jones. Perhaps even on a per capita basis. I may be 
wrong on that. It is an off-the-top-of-my-head comparison, but all the 
Egyptians that I have known assured me that the vast majority of 
Egyptians do not use hashish or cannabis, and it is a much smaller 
population than ours. And we have a much larger fraction of our 
population, at least for youth, involved in the cannabis drugs. So I 
think we would come out as having more hashish users in the United 
States than in Egypt. 

Mr. Martin. If I may, I would like to try to summarize your 
recommendations, as I understood them. 

You feel that the problem of drug education, especially with 
reference to cannabis, can only be handled effectively in the Armed 
Forces if it is a part of a larger national program. 

Step number 1 in this program would be a recognition by the 
Government that we are confronted with a very serious situation. 

This would have to be preceded by a recognition and acceptance of 
the now-massive evidence about the harmful effects of cannabis, a 
recognition of the fact that there is an epidemic, and an acceptance 
of the need for a crash program to roll back the epidemic and edu- 
cate the people and present them with the facts about cannabis. And 
against that background and within that framework, it would become 
feasible to conduct an effective program of education specifically 
tailored for our Armed Forces. 

Professor Jones. I believe everything that you have stated. The 
only thing is that I would hope — and I think it might come about, 
because the problem is so urgent within the military— that even if the 
Government as a whole is not willing to take action, that the military 
will and can go ahead and do it on their own. But it would be ever 
so much more easily done and more effective if it were a total 
Government effort. 


There is need for a total Government effort because the civilian 
population really needs the Government's help. And the Armed 
Forces, in my opinion, are going to have very grave difficulties in 
maintaining an army that is really reliable and that can function in 
the face of the possible hazards for drugs that lie ahead unless 
something is done about it. 

Mr. Martin. And these hazards will grow as the epidemic con- 
tinues to spread in the population as a whole? 

Professor Jones. Yes. The army will not be able to get any seg- 
ment of the population inducted into the military force that is free 
from drugs so they can start with an uncontaminated group. I believe 
that the army and the other military forces can start with individuals 
who are contaminated with drug use and recondition them, in terms 
of their mental attitudes, strengthen their ability to deal with all 
sorts of problems, which is a matter of education, and rebuild them 
mentally as well as physically so they can be effective members of 
the Armed Forces. 

These methods are available. It is just a question of trying to 
organize them and put them into effect. 

Mr. Martin. There is a question I meant to ask sometime back. 
Does the rate of cannabis use vary from one armed service to another? 
Professor Jones. Yes. 
Mr. Martin. Or is it pretty well uniform ? 

Professor Jones. No. The rate of cannabis and other drugs varies 
from one division of the armed services to another, in the first place. 
There is also a very great variation depending upon what company 
one might be in. There were a few companies in Southeast Asia 
where the whole company was just in hopeless confusion because of 
heavy drug involvement, with cannabis being the principal one. 

I would say that this was where the commanding officer had been 
particularly lax with regard to taking any precautionary measures. 
I think that the kind of cavalier attitudes that have prevailed might 
have been all right under ordinary circumstances, and perhaps the 
men under ordinary circumstances would have felt that the com- 
mander was a whale of a good guy because he gave so much latitude 
and permission. But in facing the drug epidemic, you had to have a 
commander that really pulled the reins up tight. And where the reins 
were pulled up tight, you could see the difference in the drug prob- 
lem. The army has been able to demonstrate over and over again in 
Southeast Asia that when they took firm action, the drug abuse went 
down, just as vou can show that in civilian life. 

Now, the difference between the Army and the Navy and the Air 
Force are in that order. The Army has had a greater use of drugs ; 
the Navy, the next greatest level of use ; and the Air Force least. 

Now, it is not entirely that the Army has had more land-based 
connections to the supplies of drugs, although this is one of the fac- 
tors. I think it is sort of the esprit de corps, the training that goes 
into individuals, the training that makes individuals take more 
responsibility. This has been necessarily at a higher order for the 
Navy and at a higher order yet for the Air Force. So it shows it can 
be done. 

33-371 O - 74 - 20 


And, to some extent, too, they have been more selective with regard 
to the origins of their personnel. But today you cannot be sure with 
regard to any segment of society that you have eliminated the possi- 
bility of drug use by taking a person of good apparent qualifications, 
because that person may be contaminated. So the military would be 
well advised to use corrective methods in preparing, from boot camp, 
or whatever officers training procedures will be involved, to incor- 
porate within that antidrug abuse education of the most effective sort 
where it is meaningful and convincing to the persons involved. 

Again, it can be done. But you cannot do this with individuals that 
say marihuana is tolerable. 

Senator Thurmond. I want to thank you very much for coming 
here today and for presenting us with this very important informa- 
tion, Professor Jones. 

The hearing is now adjourned, subject to further call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 12 :20 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned 
subject to the call of the Chair.] 


THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws 
or the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in room 
224, Kussell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond, 

Also present: David Martin, senior analyst; A. L. Tarabochia, 
chief investigator; and Robert Short, senior investigator. 

Senator Thurmond. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Over the past month the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Se- 
curity has held a series of hearings on the marihuana-hashish epi- 
demic and its implications for U.S. security. Todays hearing is part 
of this series. It will deal specifically with the question of cannabis 
abuse in the U.S. Armed Services. 

To deal with this problem we have here as witnesses Dr. Forest 
S. Tennant, Jr., former Chief of the Special Action Office for Drug 
Abuse of the U.S. Army in Europe, the 7th Army, and Mr. David 
O. Cooke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, who is now in 
charge of the problem of drug abuse of the Department of Defense. 

Mr. Cooke is accompanied by a distinguished panel of support- 
ing witnesses who have expertise on different aspects of the prob- 
lem. The supporting witnesses are as follows: Dr. John F. Maz- 
zuchi; Brig. Gen. W. A. Temple; Col. Frank W. Zimmerman, Mr. 
David N. Planton; Comdr. S. J. Kreider; Col. Harry H. Tufts; 
Wayne B. Sargent; and Col. John J. Castellot. 

Gentlemen, to save time, I would suggest that you all rise and 
be sworn at one time, if you will. 

Will you raise your right hand ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give in this hear- 
ing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God? 

All Witnesses. I do. 

Senator Thurmond. Let us have a seat. 

Our first witness will be Dr. Forest S. Tennant, Jr. 

Since I notice that you have stated your qualifications in the 
opening paragraph of your testimony, Dr. Tennant, I think we 



will try to expedite it by asking you to proceed with your statement 
at this point. You may proceed, now. 


Dr. Tennant. Thank you very very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
delighted to be here. My name is Dr. Forest S. Tennant, Jr. Be- 
tween October 1968 and January 1972, I served as a medical corps 
officer in the U.S. Army, Europe. The majority of my service was 
spent with the 3d Infantry Division where I helped initiate some of 
the first drug and alcohol rehabilitation efforts developed in the 
Armed Forces. During the last 4 months of my tour of auty, I was 
assigned to the general staff of Gen. Michael Davison, USAREUR 
Commander in Chief, and it was my job to assist in development 
of drug and alcohol rehabilitation and prevention programs through- 
out the command. Since 1972 I have intermittently consulted with 
U.S. Army, Europe, concerning drug dependence matters, and I 
returned to West Germany for 6 weeks of Active Reserve duty in 
late 1972. I am currently a postdoctoral fellow in public health at 
UCLA. As part of my duties, I conduct research in drug and 
alcohol dependence, and I currently direct three drug treatment 
programs and consult with a variety of others in the Greater Los 
Angeles area. 

Throughout my tour of Army duty I conducted a number of 
studies on the drug problem and much of this research involved 
hashish, which was the only form of cannabis normally available 
in the U.S. Army, Europe. I and my colleagues have published 
several papers on hashish which most have been, or will be, made 
available to you. Stimuli for our research on hashish was the re- 
curring observation that hashish abuse adversely affected the phys- 
ical and mental health of soldiers; it impaired combat readiness 
and capability of our units; and impacted upon military security. 
These undesirable results of hashish abuse occurred in a variety of 
ways which I will elucidate during the remainder of my testimony. 

Senator Thurmond. Dr. Tennant, when you first went to Europe 
did you have any preformed opinions, one way or the other, on 
the potential effects of cannabis use ? 

Dr. Tennant. I went there in 1968, and at that time the drug 
abuse epidemic had not hit its peak, and I knew very little about 
cannabis, frankly. The only thing I did know was that it was 
thought to be a rather innocuous drug and a rather harmless drug. 
And that was the basis of starting my investigations. 

Senator Thurmond. Thank you. 

You may proceed. 

Dr. Tennant. Before discussing the complications of hashish, it 
is necessary to establish the difference between the hashish smoked 
by U.S. Army soldiers and the usual marihuana marketed in the 
United States. Hashish is the resin of the cannabis plant and 
marihuana is the whole plant. Hashish normally contains about 
8 to 10 percent THC compared to marihuana which contains only 
about 1 percent THC. A major difference between hashish and 
marihuana from the medical point of view is the irritating effect 


of hashish on the respiratory tract. 1-3 While marihuana smoke is 
not particularly irritating, hashish smoke is extremely irritating to 
the nose, throat, and lungs. In West Germany, hashish was very 
inexpensive, costing only about $1 to $1.50 per gram compared to 
several dollars per gram in the United States. It was not uncommon 
for soldiers to smoke 50 to 100 grams of hashish per month. It would 
require a monthly consumption of 500 to 2,000 stateside marihuana 
cigarettes to take in the same amount of active ingredient (THC). 
I was, therefore, in the unusual position to observe some American 
young men consume massive amounts of hashish, since it was readily 
available and inexpensive. It was surprising and of great concern 
that some young men would consume and develop tolerance to 
enormous doses of hashish that are as yet rarely observed in this 

I have not been in a good position to observe the long-term toxic 
effects of normal, street marihuana on young Americans in the 
United States. During the past 2 years I have enjoyed being the 
medical director of a free medical clinic in Los Angeles which 
treats the medical problems of approximately 500 young adults per 
month. While I frequently observed certain medical and psychiatric 
problems related to chronic hashish abuse among American soldiers 
in West Germany, I have observed few complications of cannibis 
smoking in my clinic in Los Angeles. It is my opinion that, in 
contrast to soldiers in West Germany, this has been due to the 
low quality of street marihuana found in the United States and 
short-term consumption of most young people. Based on my clinical 
experience and many reports in the literature, however, I would not 
expect us to see an epidemic of complications of street marihuana 
for a few years. Given the reports presented before this subcom- 
mittee and the fact that chronic use of cannabis is spreading in 
this country, it would be reasonable to expect an epidemic of can- 
nabis complications within a few years similar to what has been 
observed among our soldiers in West Germany. 

My own clinical observations indicate that complications of can- 
nabis follow a dose-response curve ; that is, higher doses taken over 
a given period of time may elicit a more significant biologic re- 
sponse. I suspect that much of the controversy involving cannabis, 
particularly among the laiety, is due to failure to understand a 
dose-response curve. An understanding of a dose-response curve 
for cannabis, as with any other drug, allows a scientific understand- 
ing of most of the reports in lay and scientific literature that ini- 
tially may appear at variance with one another. As I progress through 
my presentation, I will frequently refer to dose-response principles. 

Between 1970 and 1972 I surveyed U.S. Army soldiers three times 
by anonymous questionnaire to determine the prevalence of drug use 
and predict trends. Table 1 shows the drug prevalence of hashish, 
amphetamines, and opiate drugs among 5,044 subjects. This survey 

1 Tennant, F.S., Jr.. et al. : "Medical Manifestations Associated With Hashish." Jour- 
nal. American Medical Association 216 :1965-1969, 1971. 

1 Henderson, R. L. and Tennant, F. S., Jr. : "Respiratory Manifestations of Hashish 
Smoking." Archives Otolaryngology 95 :248-251, 1972. 

3 Tennant. F. S., Jr., et al. : "Hashish Bronchitis." Journal, American Medical Associa- 
tion 217:1706-1707, 1972. 


was conducted in the last half of 1971. The survey was conducted 
by assembling 26 battalion-size units from 11 U.S. Army kasernes 
in the post theater-auditorium and letting each subject fill out 
the questionnaire anonymously. On this basis, 35.4 percent reported 
they had used hashish in West Germany at least one time. A total 
of 14.8 percent reported they used hashish one or more times per 
week. I believe this questionnaire study to be fairly accurate since 
random spot urine tests of 27,000 USAREUR soldiers during this 
same time period showed the prevalence of abuse of amphetamines, 
barbiturates, and opiates to be the same as did the questionnaire 
study: 1.04 percent by urine test compared to 1.3 percent by ques- 
tionnaire — P = NS. 4 

One of the factors that has made it difficult to evaluate effects 
of cannabis is that it is simultaneously consumed with alcohol, to- 
bacco, and/or other illegal drugs. 5 6 In the study of 5,044 subjects, 
about 25 percent reported use of two or more illegal drugs while 
about 10 percent reported use of three or more illegal drugs — 
figure l. 7 Multiple drug use was apparently quite prevalent in this 
population before Army induction — figure 2. Approximately 50 
percent of the total population reported use of at least one drug — 
including alcohol — while about 20 percent reported use of two or more 
drugs — including alcohol — before Army induction. 

4 P = N8 signifies in statistical language that this is not a significant difference. 

5 P = NS signifies in statistical language that this is not a significant difference. 

"Pendergast, T. J., Jr., Tennant, F. S., Jr., et al. : "Drug Use and Its Relations to 
Alcohol and Cigarette Consumption in the U.S. Military Community of West Germany." 
International Journal of Addiction 8, Fall, 1973. 

7 Tennant, F. S., Jr., et al. : "Psychiatric Effects of Hashish." Archives, General Psy- 
chiatry 27 :133-136, 1972. 


x u a 

•rl C-P 

x S c 

a o -h 

« "0 p, 

X. - o 


cri r-> n 

ry in in 

~S"?G - ar'^ c uj (X' ra f o mm » 



■H -rl £! 

M do 

o o o o 

d w o .h 

o -h c s o 

O ^ C! O (-. 

in m co 

in ro to 

O C^ 0*> 

ill f\l GJ vT O 


The simultaneous use of other drugs, including alcohol and to- 
bacco, with cannabis, is a critical issue in my opinion, and one that 
must be directly reckoned with in arriving at decisions regarding 

There are many other studies that report that multiple drug use 
is very prominent among the drug culture in the United States. 

Mr. Martin. These facts are covered in figure 1 which you have 
appended to your prepared statement? 

l)r. Tennant. Yes. And I have also attached to my statement 
something about the frequency of drug use before Army induction. 
About 50 percent of all the USAREUR soldiers that we surveyed 
reported they used at least one drug, including alcohol, before Army 
induction, while about 20 percent reported the use of two or more 
drugs before Army induction. Approximately 10 to 15 percent used 
two or three or more drugs prior to Army induction. 

So, therefore, the drug taking habits of the soldiers began long 
before Army induction. 

One of the things that I would like to make a special point of 
and one that I will cover later in my testimony is that cannabis 
products are commonly used with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, 
and it is my opinion that this is one issue that has not been directly 
reckoned with, and one that has not been discussed enough. And 
I will come back to it. 

One of the things that has seldom been done in the cannabis con- 
troversy is to ask a large number of cannabis users if the drug 
adversely affects them. Usually a few cannabis advocates attempt 
to speak for all smokers. In early 1971 we surveyed 1,018 U.S. 
Army soldiers by anonymous questionnaires: 492, 48 percent, had 
used hashish in West Germany. This group of hashish smokers stated 
that the drug caused the following problems: 

1. Bronchitis, 30 out of 492 smokers, 6.1 percent. 

2. Sore throat, 122 out of 492 smokers, 24.8 percent. 

3. Running nose, 43 out of 492 smokers, 8.7 percent. 

4. Diarrhea, 23 out of 492 smokers, 4.7 percent. 

5. Headache, 70 out of 492 smokers, 14.2 percent. 

6. Emotional problems, 42 out of 492 smokers, 8.5 percent. 

7. No bad effects, 205 out of 492 smokers, 41.7 percent. 

In addition, 13.9 percent of these hashish smokers stated they had 
had to visit an Army physician for an ailment caused by hashish. 
Three percent — 3.2 percent — stated they were forced to visit an Army 
physician five or more times for an hashish-caused ailment. 

Visits to U.S. Army medical facilities by hashish smokers for 
hashish-related complaints became a problem in 1969. Over a 3-year 
period Groesbeck and I studied the psychiatric manifestations of 
720 hashish smokers who sought medical attention at the U.S. 
Army Hospital in Wurzburg, West Germany which served a pop- 
ulation of about 36,000 over this time period, (table 2) A detailed 
analysis of these cases has been published elsewhere so I will only 


relate certain aspects of these cases that particularly relate to job 
performance and military security. 8 


Dose per 
No. month grams Frequency use Reason for medical consultation 

392 0-12 1-3 times per week Respiratory ailment or drug information. 

18 ^. 0-25 Experimental or occasional Acute panic reaction or toxic psychosis. 

3 10-50 3-7 times weekly Schizophrenic reaction. 

110 50-600 Several times daily .. Chronic intoxicated state. 

85 10-50 3-7 times weekly Acute toxic reaction (multiple drug use). 

HI 25-200 Several times daily... Schizophrenic reaction (multiple drug use). 

720 Total 

Source: Doses, frequencies, and reasons for medical consultation cf 720 hashish smokers. 

Over one-half — 392 — of these individuals smoked small quantities 
of hashish and came to us for minor respiratory complaints — sore 
throat, sinusitis — or for information about the adverse effects of 
hashish. The other subjects exhibited findings of significant psychi- 
atric disease. One hundred and ten of these patients severely abused 
hashish by smoking 50 to 600 grams monthly for 3 to 12 months. 
These men smoked hashish several times per day. Other illegal 
drug usage was reported as rare or nonexistent in these soldiers. All 
110 patients exhibited a personality disturbance which prompted 
psychiatric consultation at some point during their period of high- 
dose hashish consumption. Despite variation in overall symptoma- 
tology, all displayed symptoms of chronic intoxication similar to 
those found in individuals dependent on depressant-hypnotic drugs. 
Major manifestations were apathy, dullness, and lethargy with mild- 
to-severe impairment of judgment, concentration, and memory. In- 
termittent episodes of confusion and inability to calculate occurred 
with high levels of chronic intoxication. Physical appearance was 
stereotyped in that all patients appeared dull, exhibited poor hy- 
giene, and had slightly slowed speech. So apathetic were many pa- 
tients that they lost interest in cosmetic appearance, proper diet, and 
personal affairs such as paying debts, job performance, et cetera. 
Although violence or overt acts of crime were rare in these patients, 
they were frequently in social and legal difficulties due to failure to 
care for their personal affairs. 

Also of serious but lesser concern were 21 of these patients who 
developed acute psychotic reactions which required hospitalization. 
These types of reactions were common. Table 3 lists the causes of 
drug hospitalizations to the 10 USAREUR hospitals between Janu- 
ary 1971 and June 1972 and many were for adverse hashish reactions. 

8 Guerry, R. L., Henderson, R. L., Tennant, F. S., Jr., et al. : Abnormalities of the 
Respiratory System In Hashish Smokers. (In press.) 


e\j wt co i-* oo •*■ to ^ oo 




o o m o <%j oo r^ ^; 
cmco c\j*f0oco*— < 

CNCO .— i^-0«sf 



cm ^* ^f co I s * ^ ^ 


CT>— ' Ol — < <X> ("'l U*t ^T 


<x> r-H r^ro°Obr>CM 

co«-< ^-cgtoeo 

co **-c\jr«*co 

CM ^ IT) ^H r** ^* 


ro— . .— iX5 ~^ OO -*r — 




This group of patients points out very vividly the problem of 
simultaneous use of hashish and other drugs. One hundred and 
twelve of the 720 patients developed psychotic reactions resembling 
schizophrenic reactions. They followed consumption of hashish with 
hallucinogens, amphetamines, or alcoholic beverages. These patients 
were, for some, long-term hashish abusers who, for 3 to 6 months 
prior to hospitalization, consumed 25 to 200 grams monthly. Schizo- 
phrenic reactions occurred abruptly during their period of drug 
abuse and all patients at the time of admission to the hospital were 
psychotic enough to require restraint and observation. Premorbid 
histories obtained from the commanders of these patients indicated 
in each instance the presence of progressive psychiatric illness and 
deterioration of job performance prior to the onset of acute symp- 
toms. All required eventual evacuation to the United States for long- 
term psychiatric confinement. 

Mr. Martin. While we are on that point, I think it might be 
interesting to ask a few questions for the purpose of establishing 
just how enormous this quantity really is. 

According to Professor Paton, when he was here and testified 
before our subcommittee, 5 to 10 milligrams of THC is enough for 
the average smoker to get himself a case of cannabis intoxication. 
And allowing for wastage in smoking, it would work out to about 
25 milligrams of THC. Since hashish is one-tenth THC, this would 
make 250 milligrams of hashish. So that 1 gram of hashish would be 
enough for four cannabis intoxications. 

Does that sound about right for the average smoker? 

Dr. Tennant. I think that is about correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. Martin. When you get up to the level of 600 grams of hashish 
a month, you are talking about 20 grams a day, or approximately 
2 grams of pure THC? 

Dr. Tennant. That is correct. 

Mr. Martin. Which is the equivalent of 80 times the amount 
necessary to produce cannabis intoxication in the average smoker. 
Now, this is a rate of acceleration that far exceeds any acceleration 
that I have ever heard of in the case of alcoholics. They may start 
out as relatively heavy drinkers, taking a third of a bottle a day, 
let us say, half a bottle a day, and over a period of many years they 
will slowly move toward a bottle a day, a bottle and a half a day. 
But they do not go much higher than that. They may increase their 
intake about fourfold, sixfold, from the time they first begin drink- 
ing heavily on a regular basis. 

But in the case of these hashaholics you were talking about, they 
were able to increase their intake of cannabis — apparently over a 
relatively short period of time — eightyfold or a hundredfold? 

Dr. Tennant. That is absolutely correct. And it was rather 
astounding for us to find this out. 

Let me just say that smoking 600 grams a month was^a rare sit- 
uation. It was very common for someone to smoke 50 or a hundred 
grams of hashish a month. And initially the soldiers would explain 
to us that when they first started smoking hashish in Germany they 
would smoke no more than one or two puffs of hashish. But over a 


period of just a few weeks they could build a very rapid tolerance 
to the drug. 

Mr. Martin. Would it be accurate that some of those that became 
hashaholics had not even smoked marihuana before they came to 
Germany? Or had most of these done some smoking before they 
came to Germany? 

Dr. Tennant. Based on our surveys, the majority of them had 
smoked some marihuana before they smoked hashish in Germany. 

Mr. Martin. Were they chronic marihuana smokers before they 
came to Germany? Were they at the once a day level or the once a 
week level? 

Dr. Tennant. I do not have that precise information. Many of 
them were, and some were not. 

Mr. Martin. Presumably, some of them were only casual smokers 
who took one joint a week or several joints a week? 

Dr. Tennant. Yes. 

Mr. Martin. And they progressed from this level in a period of 
what time? 

Dr. Tennant. According to what they would tell us, they could 
go from a level of smoking one or two stateside marihuana joints 
up to a level of 25 or 50 grams of hashish within a period of 3 
months. They obviously developed a tolerance to the drug very 

Mr. Martin. Now, when you get up to the level of a hundred or 
200 grams a month, even allowing for the much cheaper price of 
hashish in Germany, you have reached a point where the ordinary 
GI cannot afford that much without some special source of income. 
Where does he get the money ? 

Dr. Tennant. Of course, different people would get it from vari- 
ous places. But we had many cases — and I would like to relate some 
anecdotes later in my testimony — who would get into illegal behavior 
to support this habit. And, of course, many soldiers went into 
the hashish-dealing business. This was quite common. Other soldiers 
would say that it would be possible to smoke 25 or 50 grams a month 
simply by borrowing from other soldiers. But without question, 
many of them did get into illegal activities in order to support this 
type of consumption. 

Mr. Martin. The requirement for this kind of money would ob- 
viously make them security risks? 

Dr. Tennant. Very much so. 

Mr. Martin. Again you talk about overt acts of crime, are you 
talking about violent crime? 

Dr. Tennant. Yes, sir. But not directly caused by pharmacologic 
effects of the drug. 

Mr. Martin. For example, you just said a while ago that many 
of them went into selling hashish and other criminal activities? 

Dr. Tennant. Let me qualify "other criminal activities" a bit. 

Rarely in our experience did we see these people who were chron- 
ically intoxicated commit violent crime. In other words, they were 
very seldom involved in assaults or beatinsrs or anything like this. 
But they were always in other kinds of difficulties. 


Mr. Martix. Nonviolent crimes ? 

Dr. Tenxant. Nonviolent type activities, or illegal activities, let 
us say. It was very frequent. 

Attached I have a list of hospitalizations of people who required 
treatment while I was in the USAREUR Command between 1971 
and up through June of 1972. Many people — and I pointed this out — 
many people state that if you smoke hashish or marihuana, it will 
never result in hospitalization because the drug is harmless. But our 
data in USAREUR does not support this belief. We had many 
admissions each month to our ten hospitals, which showed that there 
were a number of hashish-caused hospitalizations. 

And to go right along with this, the recent DAWN (Drug Abuse 
Warning Network) data — which is the information system established 
here in the United States, of which I have been one of the major con- 
sultants during the past year — shows that out of the 800 reporting 
hospitals that report to the IMS Company in Philadelphia each 
month, there are a number of hospital admissions and emergency treat- 
ments that are required in the United States for marihuana and hashish 
abuse. So, apparently, the same thing that we saw in the U.S. Army, 
Europe is beginning to occur in the United States. This informa- 
tion, of course, is not publicly known, because generally the lay 
press only reports information that generally states that nobody gets 
sick if they use marihuana. However, there is quite a body of data 
accumulating in the DAWN system which shows that that is not 
the case in the United States at this time. 

To perhaps better emphasize the problems that we saw with 
hashish and job performance and military security, I would like to 
pass on a few anecdotal reports from my own files. And I emphasize 
that these are cases out of my own records, and they are not hear- 
say. I did not take them from someone else ; they were my own cases. 
They point out a lot of problems that we observed with hashish abuse. 

Number 1, AJ, a 19-year-old soldier, according to his roommate 
sniffed two bottles of cleaning fluid ; drank a fifth of bourbon ; smoked 
four bowls of hashish and expired. 

2. JM, under the influence of unknown quantities of alcohol and 
hashish, took an axe and killed his German girlfriend by literally 
chopping her into several pieces. The following morning he claimed 
he did not remember the incident. 

3. Three soldiers, under the influence of hashish, raped a 15-year- 
old dependent girl. All three soldiers blamed the incident on 

4. SG, under the influence of hashish and strawberry wine, one 
evening stole several soldiers' belongings such as stereos and wrist- 
watches. The following morning he did not remember the inci- 
dent. Furthermore, he claimed he had never stolen before and he 
was recognized as a model soldier bv his superiors. He had no use 
for the items and returned them to their owners. 

5. A frequent occurrence is illustrated by CN who, under the in- 
fluence of hashish and alcohol, sliced his wrists in a suicidal gesture. 

6. This report points out some of the implications of crime and 
violence that are indirectly related to the consumption of hashish — 


one barracks in my division became known as "Smoky Barracks" 
because it was a well-known supplier of hashish. Many violent acts 
occurred in these barracks which were related to hashish dealing. 
To the best of my knowledge, five to six soldiers commandeered the 
hashish dealing. Failure to pay a drug bill for as little as $10 or 
$20 resulted in violence. Since I was the surgeon who had to care 
for the victims of the violence, I became involved and knowledge- 
able. The usual violent act was a "blanket party" which occurred 
when the attackers would find the victim asleep. They rolled him up 
in his blanket like a hot dog and physically assaulted him with fists 
and clubs. On two occasions soldiers were thrown from a two-story 
window because they failed to pay a hashish bill and in one in- 
stance, a soldier's wife was beaten for a deficit of $60. 

7. Some of the fights and incidents between blacks and whites 
which occurred in U.S. Army, Europe, in 1970 and 1971 and were 
labeled "racial incidents" were, in reality, fights over who would 
control the local hashish franchise. 

Let me emphasize that the above anecdotal reports do not prove 
that hashish caused them. They do, however, dramatically point out 
some issues and call for a note of caution concerning cannabis. First, 
they emphasize potential problems related to security for the U.S. 

Second, these cases illustrate how cannabis is commonly used in 
real life. It is a drug that is seldom taken in isolation. It is usually 
simultaneously consumed with other drugs, particularly alcohol. 
Even in the United States, marihuana is usually passed around at 
parties after alcohol has been consumed. As illustrated by the above 
anecdotal reports, it is impossible to tell whether the" tragic events 
occurred as a result of a disturbed personality, alcohol, hashish, or 
a combination. One thing is certain, however, cannabis effects must 
be considered in light of its simultaneous use with alcohol. Most 
experiments and research conducted on cannabis in recent years 
have not taken into consideration that cannabis is usually not 
consumed in isolation from other drugs. At present it appears to 
me that we need considerable research on the effects of simultaneous 
use of cannabis and other drugs, particularly alcohol. 

Mr. Martin. A question at this point, Dr. Tennant. Is it your 
impression that when someone takes cannabis and alcohol, the total 
effect is a kind of arithmetical sum of the effects of the two drugs — 
or do they have a synergistic, or compounding, effect, so that you 
get an aggravated reaction by taking the two of them? 

Dr. Tennant. From purely clinical observations, there is usually a 
compounding effect, or potentiating effect, as it is referred to in 
toxicology. In other words, not two and two equals four, but two 
and two equals six; this type of effect. At least this is what you see 
clinically when these two drugs are consumed. I have frankly not 
seen good basic research to really clarify these points. If the research 
exists. I do not know about it. 

I would also like to mention a little bit about the impairment of 
driving by cannabis intoxication. There have been many studies 
which point out that cannabis can impair driving. 


I saw many accidents that appeared to be related to hashish 
consumption. Although most were minor and did not take a life, the 
following two reports from my own files were tragic: 

1. KS, under the influence of hashish, drove his motorbike under 
a truck and decapitated himself. His roommate said he made a 
usual practice of smoking hashish while riding his motorbike. 

2. A 21/4 -ton truck carrying several soldiers drove over a cliff, 
while attempting to make a turn. Eight soldiers were killed. My 
investigation revealed, via information from soldiers who were not 
killed, that the driver smoked two pipebowls of hashish about 1 
hour before driving. 

The above two incidents point out the potential problem of U.S. 
Army soldiers operating equipment, flying, etc. under the influence 
of cannabis. To complicate matters there is little way to detect an 
individual when under the influence of the drug and there is as 
yet no reliable, routine laboratory test to detect THC in the urine, 
breath, blood, or saliva. 

Mr. Martin. A question at this point, Dr. Tennant, rather than 
coming back to the point later on. 

Have you heard a tape recording, a very dramatic tape recording, 
prepared by Dr. Joseph Davis of the University of Miami Medical 
School? It involves a young cannabis driver who had smoked 2i/£ 
joints, and a student — a friend — who acted as a control, and has 
the tape recorder beside him in the car. 

Dr. Tennant. I have not heard the tapes. I have read a transcript 
of these recordings. And they are quite dramatic. I think they are 
probably more dramatic than you would normally see in the case of 
an individual who was intoxicated with any drug. But I think his 
particular reports certainly points out that people who are intoxi- 
cated with cannabis or any other drug are not going to be able to 
drive properly. 

Mr. Martin. I have here a few excerpts from the transcript which 
suggests to me that the net impact is probably qualitatively different 
from the impact we get from a simple alcoholic drunk. I would 
like to read these few excerpts to you. 

The driver said: 

I now feel my head vibrating in between two and three different people. I 
have forgot to look one way when I rounded that corner. I went into third 
gear very, very poorly, possibly the worse that I have done in my entire life. 
I am coming to a stop sign. For some reason I feel maybe I won't be able to 
stop. It is difficult to force my foot down to the floor on the brakes. It seems 
as though both of my feet are riding on cushions, the cushions between my feet 
and the brake pedal. 

And then after a while he says : 

I am very frightened of cars passing me. I .iust did a totally mechanical 
action. I don't know why I did it. I just feel that if I could lift my foot off 
the brake I would just go zooming around the world. 

And then a bit later: 

I just can't handle this thing any longer, because I feel like I am going 
around the end of the world. 

And then a little later: 

Let me explain something. I was upside down driving and it is happening 
again. And I have got to say something. I can't possibly drive now, no matter 


what anyone does to me, because I am driving on my head. You know, driving 
isn't good when you are upside down. 

I have to get off the road. My God, what is happening? 

I don't know, I have driven cars a few times, I will confess, 
when I have had one or two too many drinks. I have been with 
some people who have been driving who have had a few too many 
drinks. But I can recall, quantitatively, no reaction quite comparable 
to this. This guy was hallucinating ; his mind was not simply fuzzed 

Dr. Tennant. I think perhaps that incident may point out that 
alcohol is primarily a depressant, but with cannabis you essentially 
get psychotic symptoms with a toxic dose, in which case you may 
have delusions, or you may be confused, or you may hallucinate. This 
is well documented in many reports. It sounds like this is what 
happened in this particular incident. 

Mr. Martin. The clincher here, which comes at the end of Dr. 
Davis' commentary, is that when the car was stopped by a traffic 
policeman, the control and the cannabis-intoxicated student simply 
changed positions. And the traffic policeman was not aware, he 
simply had no knowledge, that this car which has been behaving 
so strangely had been driven by a student who was intoxicated with 

Dr. Tennant. I would certainly like to add to this that I think 
one of the biggest problems from a public health point is the driving 
problem with cannabis. One of the big dilemmas that we are in is 
that we have no reliable, inexpensive routine test to detect THC or 
cannabis products in the urine, breath, blood, et cetera. And, there- 
fore, there is no way to accurately detect, for example, for the rou- 
tine community or Army post, whether someone is intoxicated with 
cannabis, because we just do not have a laboratory test that is 
readily adaptable at this time. It is strictly a research p